Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Engineering Industry (Dilutees)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will confer with the representatives of the A.E.U. and of the employers with a view to obtaining the maximum co-operation between these two bodies and his Department before he puts into practice any scheme for transferring skilled workers from war to peace work prior to the discharge of dilutees;
(2) if he is aware of the disquiet caused by the Government's announcement that dilutees will be retained in war work while skilled labour is transferred to peace production; and if he will give an assurance that all steps will be taken to prevent this transference being accompanied by unemployment of skilled workmen while dilutees remain at work.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It the two sides of the engineering industry so desire, I should of course be glad to discuss with them the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and indeed the A.E.U. have already seen me

regarding it. As regards the latter part of Question No. 3, I am very glad to give the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Kirkwood: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that it was our Executive of the A.E.U. which asked me to raise this matter with him—hence the two Questions?

Scientists (Release and Training)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the importance of setting in motion at the earliest possible date schemes of industrial research and development, involving large numbers of trained scientists, what plans have been made for the earliest possible release of such persons from war service and for the training of younger men to supplement them.

Mr. Bevin: Applications for the release from the Forces of trained scientists can be made through the appropriate Government Departments under the Government's plans for the re-allocation of man-power after the defeat of Germany, which contain provision for the early release of a strictly limited number of individual specialists. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, about the re-allocation within industry of trained scientists who are at present engaged upon war work. The conditions on which students may be permitted, after the cessation of hostilities with Germany, to begin or continue their scientific training are under consideration and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity of making that statement?

Mr. Bevin: I should be very sorry to make any promise, because, as I have said in reply to a previous Question, in dealing with matters of this kind a proper balance has to be kept between one class and another.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Brewery, Alloa (Service Men)

Mr. Barr: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that steps have been taken by Messrs. Younger, brewers at Alloa, to place 50 Service


men in employment at the brewery, the men to be billeted in the brewery premises; and if this arrangement was made with his approval.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. It has not so far been possible to provide military labour for this purpose.

Mr. Barr: Is the Minister aware that in connection with wet canteens, a provision was approved by this House to the effect that if anyone objected on grounds of principle, it would not be compulsory for them to take up this work?

Mr. Bevin: There is a great demand for beer from the troops, and a serious shortage of it, and I have difficulty in finding the amount of labour required in the malting. I understand that this application dealt only with the preliminary stage of the malting, not all of which may go into beer.

Mental Hospital Nurses (Eire Candidates)

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Labour whether the request made to mental hospitals to engage candidates from Eire as student nurses is without prejudice to the promotion prospects of the numerous young Englishwomen who desire to adopt this career but have been directed to factories and other forms of National Service.

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware that any young English women who desired to perform mental nursing have been directed to other employment, and if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to make enquiry. Nursing, including mental nursing, has the highest possible priority and apart from a few specially trained classes of women, such as teachers, any girl who is acceptable to a hospital as a nurse is given permission to join the profession.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: While thanking the Minister for his reply, in regard to which I shall avail myself of the opportunity to send him certain evidence on the matter, may I take it that this is a purely war-time measure, and that as soon as British girls are available they will be given the opportunity of entering this profession?

Mr. Bevin: I have already said not only that they have the opportunity now, but that they have an absolute priority.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that some of these Irish nurses, when they return on leave to their homeland do not come back?

Mr. Bevin: The difficulty is that I have been so short of staff for hospitals that I have had to use Irish girls and all kinds of people—aliens, for example—to try to staff the hospitals the best way I can. There is the risk sometimes that Irish girls go back, but on the other hand there is also the complaint that they stay here permanently.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (N.F.S. SERVICE)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour if men released from the Army to the N.F.S., at the time of enemy air raids against this country and later recalled to the Army, can count their period of service with the N.F.S. under the demobilisation scheme.

Mr. Bevin: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) on 17th October.

Mr. Lipson: Does my right hon. Friend think it is quite fair to these men not to count that service, in view of the nature and quality of the service they gave?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot express an opinion until a final conclusion has been reached.

Mr. Bowles: Is not the position that the Cabinet have not yet come to a conclusion about the matter?

Mr. Bevin: There are a lot of problems associated with demobilisation that have to be cleared up.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Many of these men volunteered before the war began. Will that be taken into consideration?

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there were casualties of 2,000 killed and wounded in the National Fire Service in London alone, in 1940–41–more than in the "Ack-Ack"? Should that not be regarded as combatant service?

Mr. Bevin: The difficulty is that when you start measuring demobilisation on a comparison of casualties, it raises the question of the number of people who have been killed in homes and factories, and people who have been directed to other Government work. I cannot isolate the matter on that basis at all, and I would not like to express an opinion now.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider the cases of those persons to whom 100 per cent. disability pensions have been granted but who since the award have been further seriously injured through war operations; and whether in such cases either a lump sum will be paid or supplementary pensions added to the existing pension.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I would remind him that provision already exists whereby a supplementary allowance may be granted to a war pensioner whose disablement is so serious as to render him unemployable.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in fact there are cases of severely injured men and women who, having received pensions, are later on severely injured again? Does he not think that in those cases, very sympathetic consideration should be paid to the possibility of giving them an extra grant?

Sir W. Womersley: Very sympathetic consideration is given to all these cases. I have already said that a supplementary allowance can be made, if the person is unemployable.

Mr. Foster: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in regard to such a case, when a man becomes unemployable?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, we have a very good test of that.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to the complaints made at a meeting of the Brecon, Radnor and West Glamorgan War Pensions Committee alleging that serious hardship was being caused by ex-Service men having to wait a long period before their cases are heard

by a pensions tribunal and of men and their dependants having to seek public assistance whilst waiting for a decision in their cases; and if he will make a statement on the position.

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. As I have previously explained, it was realised when independent appeals tribunals were set up in war-time that general man-power difficulties would cause some delay in the hearing of appeals. Priority is, however, given to the more urgent cases, and if my hon. Friend has in mind any particular case of this nature I shall be glad to receive particulars.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister given consideration to the complaints made at the meeting referred to in the Question, at which it was stated that there was a very large number of cases, very hard cases indeed, which had been waiting for months? Can he do something to expedite the hearing of these cases? There has been much public comment about the delay.

Sir W. Womersley: I announced during the passage of the tribunals Measure through this House that there would be delay in setting up tribunals. I never promised we should get on with them as quickly as I and other hon. Members desired. I warned the House of that. Wherever there is any complaint from a committee such as this, I, at once, investigate it. A general statement that there is a large number of cases is not enough. I want particulars of them.

Mr. Griffiths: May I point out that this is a committee of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry? They had details of these cases. Do I gather that these details are not available at the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry?

Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member will supply the details I will look into them at once.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider the amendment of the Royal Warrant to provide for payment of allowances to wives of disabled ex-Servicemen, married after disablement, in cases where there was a definite contract to marry before disablement and exigencies of service prevented the fulfilment of the contract before disablement.

Sir W. Womersley: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would not, in my view, afford a practicable or fair basis for the consideration of wife's allowance, and I would not feel justified in recommending its adoption.

Sir J. Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a case of a man whose marriage banns were published, who was wounded and taken prisoner, with a very high rate of disability, and who, therefore, could not get married, although he has no one to look after him, because if he were married, his wife could not get a marriage allowance?

Sir W. Womersley: If the man wants someone to look after him, he can get a constant attendance allowance.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that if he brought in an amendment to the Warrant, he would receive the hearty congratulations of every Member of this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Wheat Supplies (Reserve)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have now been taken to implement the recommendation of the Gregory Committee that a central reserve of 500,000 tons of wheat should be built up within 12 months to enable the Indian Government to deal with future emergencies.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Despite the many calls upon them for other urgent purposes during the past year, His Majesty's Government have provided shipping for the import of 800,000 tons of foodgrains into India since October, 1943, and provision for a further 300,000 tons to the end of the present year has just been announced, with a promise of consideration next month of future requirements. It must be left to the Government of India to use to the best advantage, whether by holding as reserve or otherwise, the supplies which come under its control, both indigenous and imported.

Mr. Harvey: Have not the Government accepted the policy of the reserve recommended by the Gregory Committee?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, in so far as the general shipping situation permits of building it up.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it a fact that at least 1,000,000 tons a year are recommended by the Gregory Committee?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of the nature of the Gregory Report.

Mr. Sorensen: And of the great shortage?

Mr. Graham White: How much of the 800,000 tons has reached India?

Mr. Amery: The greater part of it. I could not give the hon. Member the exact figure, but it is all coming along, and on the way.

Requisitioned Boats (Restoration)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give information as to the approximate number of the boats requisitioned for security reasons in Eastern Bengal at the outset of the Japanese attack on India which have been returned to their owners; and what measures have been taken to provide for their reconditioning.

Mr. Amery: Of some 26,000 boats taken out of the area, more than one-third have been returned to owners or otherwise restored to use. I understand that repairs were made by or under the instructions of Government to a large number of the boats with help from the military. The Government of Bengal have in hand a reconstruction programme for 10,000 country boats of varying capacities for completion by the end of the year, but the whole programme is unlikely to be completed by that date. The statistics furnished to me are not altogether clear and I am asking for clarification and will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of the reply.

Indian Army (Home Leave)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for India what steps are being taken to give home leave to married and single officers and other ranks belonging to, or attached to, the Indian Army; and with what success.

Mr. Amery: British Service personnel attached to or serving with the Indian Army are entitled to consideration under the War Office "home posting" scheme; they may, however, if they wish to return to the Indian Army, choose leave instead of "home posting." British personnel belonging to the Indian Army cannot be


treated under a "home posting" scheme, since the Indian Army has no home establishment, but a leave scheme was opened some time ago and is now in full operation. The working of this scheme depends on the number of passages which can be allotted, and the number of officers who can be spared for operational reasons. Both these points are under constant review, in order that the maximum advantage may be taken of the arrangements.

Colonel Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to see that, after a reasonable period, the opportunity of home leave is given to every rank, and every man serving in India?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these officers and men belonging to the Indian Army are really ordinary civilian soldiers, if I may use the term, who happen to have joined the Indian Army for some reason or other during this war? Will he see if cross-posting between British Army units and Indian Army units can be made possible?

Mr. Amery: In so far as they are attached to the Indian Army, the facilities of the British Army scheme are open to them. In so far as they voluntarily joined the Indian Army, their services are, naturally, in continual request for operational purposes, and those who have longer service have prior claims.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a question of transport; and, now that the seas are practically clear, could my right hon. Friend not put on extra transport, because this matter is very important?

Mr. Amery: I will do my best; but the seas, although relatively clear from interference, are certainly not clear from urgent operational demands.

Post-War Educational Development (Report)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether any progress has been made respecting the proposals contained in the Sergeant Report on Education Development in India.

Mr. Amery: The proposals contained in the report by the Central Advisory Board of Education on post-war educational

development in India are under active consideration by the responsible authorities in that country and are shortly to be submitted to the Reconstruction Committee of the Viceroy's Executive Council.

Mr. Sorensen: How long will it be before we get some report regarding those proposals; and can I take it that the basic proposal has not been rejected?

Mr. Amery: The scheme to which the hon. Member refers is one for the development of education over a period of 40 years after the war. It is now under consideration by the authorities and the Government of India, and will be under submission to their Reconstruction Committee, which will no doubt report to the Government of India in due course.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are there any proposals to educate the Brahmin members of Congress in the principles of democracy?

Mr. George Griffiths: And the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams)?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREYHOUND TRACKS, LONDON (MALPRACTICES)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Metropolitan Police are taking to protect the public from malpractices on greyhound racing tracks in the London area.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Greyhound racing tracks are private premises, and the primary responsibility for the protection of the public against mal-practices rests with those who conduct the races. The police are, however, always ready to investigate all cases in which they receive information that fraud is taking place, and to take such action as may be possible on the evidence obtained.

Mr. Brown: If I bring to the notice of the Home Secretary information which suggests that the present protective measures are inadequate, will he investigate it?

Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I will certainly have them investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (ENFORCEMENT)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain important provisions of the Road Traffic Act, are not now being enforced, even in built-up areas; and whether, in view of the serious and increasing numbers of road casualties, he will instruct the police as far as possible to see that motor vehicles, whether civil or military, are driven with due care and consideration and at a reasonable speed, and that, where necessary, proceedings are taken to enforce the law in these respects.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir; the information in my possession does not support the suggestion in the first part of the Question; and I am satisfied that, without any instructions from me, the police are doing all they can to enforce the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, in spite of the demands made upon them by reduced man-power and the many additional duties which fall to them in war-time. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend can give me any specific instances of failure on the part of the police to take appropriate action, I shall be glad to make inquiry.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not possible for the police on normal duty, in built-up areas, to take notice of cases of inconsiderate or excessive speed in driving; and, without necessarily putting on special police, could not the Act be enforced?

Mr. Morrison: I should think so. I would assume that it is the duty of the police to take notice of any breach of the law; and, so far as I know, that is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPIRITUALIST MEETING, ALTRINCHAM (USE OF HALL)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the watch committee at Altrincham in banning a spiritualist meeting, on the ground that the holding of it would violate the Witchcraft Act; and what steps he is taking to prevent this local police force denying freedom of worship to spiritualists.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made to inquiries and am informed that in August

last Altrincham town council agreed, subject to the consent of the justices, to let the Stamford Hall—which is owned by the corporation—for the purpose of a lecture on spiritualism on the 8th October and that the justices gave their consent to the opening of the hall on Sunday for this purpose. Subsequently posters were displayed in the district which indicated that at the meeting an address would be given at or about 3 p.m. by the spirit of a dead person, and that the audience would be invited to contribute to a collection. The police received a letter from a member of the public suggesting that the organisers of the meeting would be guilty of an offence under the Witchcraft Act, 1735, and that in view of the grief and mourning caused by war casualties the meeting was most inadvisable in the public interest. The police thought it right to bring this letter to the notice of the town council, who decided in the circumstances to cancel the agreement for the letting of the hall. It will be seen that there is no question of this meeting having been banned either by the watch committee—there is, in fact, no watch committee at Altrincham—or by the police.

Mr. Brown: Whether one agrees with the spiritualist view or not, does not the Home Secretary recognise that seances are a normal feature of spiritualist services? Are they not allowed to hold services on the ground that those services may be an offence against a 210-years old Act; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman protect this minority from this sort of thing?

Mr. Morrison: I think I should be taking on a great responsibility, if I undertook to say whether each particular meeting is to be held or not, or whether the owners of a hall are to let it or not.

Mr. T. Brooks: Would it not be better if the police attended to the suppression of crime, and left the religious bodies to continue their work of educating the people on higher moral and spiritual standards; and, further, is not religious freedom one of the great principles for which the Allied Nations are fighting—
—

Hon. Members: Order, order.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN POLICE (INSPECTORATE)

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increasing number of policewomen and women police auxili-


aries, he has now decided to appoint to the staff of the Home Office a suitable woman to assist His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary in dealing with matters relating to women police.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have decided to make such an appointment. But candidates with suitable qualifications for the appointment are not easy to find and I am not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Mrs. Adamson: Does the Home Secretary agree that there is recognition by this appointment of the importance of women police?

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES AND APPROVED SCHOOLS (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied respecting the existing regulations dealing with the administration of corporal punishment in remand homes and approved schools; and whether he has considered a recent case, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. H. Morrison: If, as I understand, my hon. Friend is referring to a case in which a boy was found guilty of stealing when released on licence from an approved school, and was reported to have said that all boys sent back to the school got the birch for several weeks, I can assure him that there is no foundation for this statement. The administration of corporal punishment in remand homes and approved schools is subject to close restriction and I have no reason to think that the existing regulations require amendment or that they are not in general carefully observed. I am sending a copy of the relevant rules to my hon. Friend, Any complaints received are fully investigated.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that the boy was not birched, although it was so stated in court, and will the Minister see that at least the reticence to birch in juvenile courts is also made to apply to these cases?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend should not assume that the authorities are guilty. He must not believe the worst in every case. The fact is that this was a naughty boy, otherwise he would not have been sent to an approved school, and he added to his naughtiness by telling untruths about the matter in the court

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Evacuation (Teachers)

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the difficulty in securing the necessary number of teachers in connection with the evacuation of schoolchildren from London; that these difficulties are primarily due to the anxiety felt by teachers as to the availability of their houses on their return and to the inadequacy of the present evacuation allowances to meet the financial liabilities involved; and what steps he proposes to take in consultation with the Minister of Health to deal with this serious position.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): I am aware of the difficulty that is being experienced in securing L.C.C. teachers to volunteer to go to reception areas. In so far as this may be due to the first cause suggested by the hon. Member, teachers will be reassured by the recent public assurance that no furnished house will be requisitioned without prior consultation with the householder. The scale of evacuation allowances for teachers corresponds generally with those applicable to other comparable classes, and it would not be practicable to give specially favourable terms to teachers. I am, however, examining with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the possibility of giving some further assistance to meet individual cases of special financial hardship arising out of the recent evacuation from the flying bomb areas.

Mr. Green: Is the Minister aware that the conditions obtaining in regard to civil servants and other classes are not comparable with those obtaining in regard to teachers; that teachers, in the main, are evacuated in parties, that the billets are arranged for them in parties, and that, consequently prices are kept down; and can he say whether the L.C.C., the premier authority with regard to these teachers, is in favour of the parsimonious treatment handed out to them?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the latter part of my hon. Friend's observations. There are a great many teachers in other parts undertaking these duties willingly and on the terms offered, and I must hold


some balance between teachers themselves. In regard to cases of special hardship, my hon. Friend will see from my answer that I am giving them sympathetic consideration.

Requisitioned School Buildings (Release)

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Education whether arrangements have been made with the Departments for the release, without delay at the end of the war, of school buildings of evacuated schools which are now used for other purposes.

Mr. Butler: This matter is dealt with in a Circular recently sent to local education authorities, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member.

Service Personnel (Training as Teachers)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Minister of Education what steps should be taken by Service personnel who are anxious to take advantage of the emergency scheme for recruitment and training of teachers.

Mr. Butler: The emergency scheme for the training of teachers will come into operation as and when men and women are released from the Forces and other forms of national service. Those who are able to undertake some preparatory work now should ask their Unit Education Officers for advice as to the best form of reading or study to take up.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can the Minister say, in view of this chronic shortage, whether there have been any special personnel seconded to advocate among the Forces the special claims of teaching after the war; and how many are taking the correspondence courses?

Mr. Butler: I should require notice in order to give the exact answer, but my hon. Friend will realise that we, are doing our best to see that those in the Forces understand the great opening which lies before them.

Mr. Lindsay: Can I press the Minister on this point, because, apparently, there is not a very satisfactory link between the unit education officers in the Forces and those who wish to take up this vitally important profession?

Mr. Summers: Will the Minister bear in mind the national advantage of allow-

ing those who are qualified to become teachers to be demobilised at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Butler: I have already said that I am in touch with the Minister of Labour and National Service on that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESIDENTIAL NURSERIES

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Minister of Health the total number of children in residential nurseries maintained or aided out of public funds; what is the total number of staff engaged at these schools; and what is the average weekly cost per child.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): There are about 3,000 children in residential nurseries maintained or aided by public assistance authorities and a small additional number in nurseries maintained by maternity and child welfare authorities. I regret that I cannot state either the total number of staff engaged in these nurseries or the average weekly cost per child. In addition, there are 407 residential nurseries with approximately 13,000 places established under the Government evacuation scheme. The exact number of children (which varies from week to week) is not available. Some 4,000 staff are engaged in this service. The average weekly cost per place varies from 25s. to £2.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Government Policy

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the housing policy of the Government will meet the immediate needs of post-war Britain.

Mr. Willink: As I stated in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 19th July, our most urgent task is to provide homes for the 250,000 additional families which have come into being since 1939 and for those who have lost their homes during the war. The Government's programme for permanent and temporary dwellings is designed to meet this need within the first two years after the war.

Sir T. Moore: Again, I would ask the Minister to answer my Question. Is he satisfied that the programme set forth by


himself and other Members of the Government will meet the immediate demand for these houses?

Mr. Willink: I am satisfied that we have done our best up to date, but I am not satisfied that we cannot do better if we continue our efforts.

Sir T. Moore: Will the Minister appreciate the fact that both he and the Government may well rise or fall by their capacity to deal with this problem?

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister not think that the time has arrived for the Government to reconsider its decision to stop house-building during the war? Get on with house-building now. Our folk are desperate, and men will be coming back, after the war, and finding no homes.

Bombed-out Families, London (Accommodation)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health how many houses in the London region are now being kept empty to accommodate persons who may be bombed out.

Mr. Willink: None, Sir. There is not at present enough suitable accommodation available to provide for all the families that have been rendered homeless. As properties are repaired and become available they are offered to these families.

Mr. Driberg: Does that answer imply that the Minister's policy on this matter has now been changed in other regions besides London?

Mr. Willink: It implies that, so far as London is concerned, the immediate needs are so great that it would be wrong, in my view, to keep habitable dwellings available in reserve for future bombing.

Emergency Construction

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he has established any formula by which he will determine the priority of delivery of emergency factory-built houses to the different communities;
(2) whether he is yet ready to receive applications from local authorities for emergency factory-built houses and the approximate date he expects to deliver these so that local authorities may know approximately when they must have their roads and mains for water, sewage, electricity and gas ready;
(3) as he intends paying for the emergency factory-built houses by the same costing procedure as was employed in the payment of munitions, whether he will introduce the time-studying methods which produced such benefits in speed and costing, as in the case of filling factories.

Mr. Willink: A number of local authorities were asked on 15th August whether they wished to apply for an allocation of temporary bungalows and I hope shortly to make a first allocation, which will be accompanied by a memorandum of guidance of which I will send my hon. Friend a copy, dealing with the acquisition and preparation of sites, and other matters. It is anticipated that the production of the bungalows on a substantial scale will begin early next summer. Priority of delivery will be largely governed by the availability of developed sites. The costing procedure to be employed is a matter for my Noble Friend, the Minister of Works, who is giving it careful consideration.

Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. and learned Friend read Question No. 34 and see if he can state any date, because no local authority can prepare roads and sewers and that sort of thing if they do not know when they are to get their houses? The difficulty of labour is well known to my right hon. and learned Friend, and surely, he ought to give guidance and help in the matter.

Mr. Willink: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the memorandum, which he will receive shortly and which deals with that very point.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Cannot the Minister speed up delivery before the beginning of next summer?

Mr. Willink: What I said in my reply was that we anticipate that deliveries on a substantial scale will begin early next summer, and I hope that deliveries on a smaller scale will begin before that date.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister talks about deliveries next summer, but are he and the House aware that there are tens of thousands of folk to-day all over Britain who have no homes? Why do not the Government face this problem in the same way as they face the Germans?

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether the cost of providing temporary houses, particularly in bombed areas, is to be fully a national charge.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made in the course of the Debates on the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act.

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Health why the Stepney borough council are being allowed only 200 uni-seco huts instead of 500 as requested.

Mr. Willink: Local authorities were informed in the relevant circular that the huts available are of two types, and that of these the uni-seco would be supplied less readily than the other. In allocating 200 uni-seco huts to Stepney borough council out of a total request for 500, and the balance in the alternative types, I have done what I can to meet the council's wishes without unduly prejudicing the claims of other local authorities.

Mr. Edwards: Can the Minister assure me that Stepney is being treated in exactly the same way as every other Metropolitan borough with regard to the allocation of these uni-seco huts; and would he be good enough to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the allocations that are being granted to other Metropolitan boroughs?

Mr. Willink: I can give my hon. Friend the first assurance, but I am not sure, in view of the space that would be taken up by the details of these allocations, that publication is necessary; but I will let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Edwards: We had information given with regard to the Portal houses, and surely this information with regard to the Metropolitan boroughs could be given?

Ex-Service Men

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to amend Section 85 of the Housing Act, 1936, to ensure that the local authorities in selecting tenants for houses see that a reasonable preference is given to ex-Service men.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Health if he will define the measure of priority to be given to ex-Service men in obtaining houses for homes after the war.

Mr. Willink: As has already been stated special consideration will be given to the claims of men returning- from the Forces in regard to housing accommodation after the war, but I am not at present in a position to indicate what action is necessary to give effect to this policy.

Mr. Butcher: If I put a similar Question to my right hon. and learned Friend early next month, may I anticipate a definite reply?

Mr. Willink: It might be so, but I think it might be better the month after next,

Purchase Price

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that excessive sums of money are being asked for and obtained by property owners for the sale of dwelling-houses belonging to them; that, in many cases, the wives of men serving in His Majesty's Forces are the victims of these excessive demands; what action he proposes to take to prevent the increasing exploitation of the acute housing shortage; and whether he will consider introducing legislation directed to preventing owners of dwelling-houses obtaining, upon the sale of their houses, a sum in excess of the value of the property on 31st March, 1939, plus 30 per cent.

Mr. Willink: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 28th September last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Dorset (Major Digby).

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the Minister aware that representations were made and evidence was furnished to his Department in April of this year; that action was then promised, that nothing has as yet been done, and that the evil has grown a great deal worse; and does he not agree that, if it is possible to control the price of building, furniture and food, it should be possible to control the price of houses?

Mr. Willink: I think my hon. Friend is under a misconception. Consideration and not necessarily action was promised, and if my hon. Friend will refer to the answer to which I referred, he will see that the matter is very closely linked to rent control, on which I am awaiting advice.

Smoke Reducing Grates

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now give any assurance that in the post-war house building campaign efficiently designed smoke reducing grates will be compulsory in all cases where coal burning fires are specified.

Mr. Willink: Advice on this matter has been given to local authorities in the Housing Manual recently issued.

Mr. Smith: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that he will be presented with a golden opportunity after the war of doing something to abate the smoke nuisance?

Mr. Willink: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is exaggerating the character of the opportunity. Smoke reducing grates at a reasonable price to ensure this most desirable result are by no means an easy problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — POPULATION (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Royal Commission on Population will be published.

Mr. Willink: I am informed that the Commission is meeting once a fortnight and is now engaged in taking evidence. There are many aspects of the inquiry still to be investigated, and it is not yet possible to say when the Commission will be in a position to report.

Mr. Davies: Can the Minister tell us whether the figures just issued of the birth rate, on a percentage basis, are based on the population of these islands, or do they include men serving abroad, and will he also answer my other question as to the average age of members of this Commission?

Mr. Willink: Perhaps the hon. Member, if he wishes, will put those questions on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Water Supply (Isle of Ely)

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Minister of Health when he will cause an official inquiry to be held into the question of providing a piped supply of water

for the villages of Newton and Tydd St. Giles from the mains of the East Ellor rural district council; and whether he is aware that the objections of the Wisbech Waterworks Company have now been withdrawn.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that the company have withdrawn their objection to the Wisbech rural district council's proposals and I am arranging for an early local inquiry.

Medical Research

Mr. Salt: asked the Minster of Health to what extent questions of medical research will be dealt with in the National Health Scheme on which his department is now working.

Mr. Willink: The encouragement and assistance of research will continue to be primarily the function of the Medical Research Council which was set up by Royal Charter for the purpose. It is the Government's intention that research and opportunities for research should be continually developed with the help of the Council.

Asthma (Treatment)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Health whether he has any information about a new treatment for asthma discovered by doctors in Ceylon; whether this treatment is being investigated by medical research in Great Britain; and with what result.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that some experimental research on chest complaints has been carried out by three doctors in Ceylon, but so far as I know the authors do not claim that this research promises hope of cure for asthma. I understand that the Medical Research Council is considering the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS (PAYMENT)

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet considered the resolution passed by the Manchester City Council on 4th October, 1944, on payment of city councillors for lost time, and submitted to him; and what further action does he contemplate.

Mr. Willink: I have seen the resolution and the report of the city council's General and Parliamentary Committee.


The council, I understand, have invited the Association of Municipal Corporations to support the proposal, and I should wish to know the views of that Association and the other local government associations before considering the matter further.

Mr. Oldfield: In view of the importance of this matter and the smallness—and I use the term advisedly—of the Association of Municipal Corporations, will the Minister himself take the initiative and speed up the matter?

Mr.Willink: I find that the Association of Municipal Corporations can move very rapidly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (VISITS TO WAR FRONTS)

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider providing, in the near future, facilities to enable some of the members of the Service Members' Committee to visit the troops in the Mediterranean Command, particularly in Italy and Egypt.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. Consideration is now being given to arrangements for parties of Members of Parliament to visit the Italian theatre of war. I know that General Wilson and General Alexander would welcome such visits.

Mr. Turton: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, can he say whether it will extend to Egypt, because I understand from the reply it is to extend only to Italy?

Mr. Attlee: We will consider that but the first steps are being taken with regard to the Italian front.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Army which regards itself as forgotten is that fighting in Burma?

Mr. Bowles: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that hon. Members who are selected will not be only Service Members?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: And not only Tory Members?

Mr. Attlee: My reply said, "Members of Parliament." It is obviously not confined to any particular Members.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will facilities be arranged for Members of Parliament to visit their constituents on the Western Front?

Mr. Attlee: That consideration will be kept in mind.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the provision of transport facilities to Members of Parliament will not hinder the bringing home of those men who have been out there three years?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-SERVICE TRAINING ORGANISATIONS

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the Government policy with regard to the post-war future of pre-service training organisations.

Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 2nd August in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn).

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in view of the fact that the essence of the problem is the relation between the number in pre-Service units and the intake into the Services, that the numbers are declining in two of the Services, and that the number of these boys has now declined from something like 500,000 to 300,000, and that a new policy is required which is not necessarily related to Service needs?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Rabbits (Steel Traps)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there is now any justification for the use of steel traps in the open contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939; and whether he will revoke that Section of Defence Regulation 63 which permits this practice.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower).

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it, if these steel traps must he used, that they are used only by competent persons, and then only when it is absolutely necessary and in cases where no other method of catching can be used?

Mr. Hudson: I am looking into the whole matter.

War Executive Committees (Stocks)

Captain Strickland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Gloucestershire War Agricultural Committee is selling barbed wire at 21s. per roll of a quality usually on sale in traders' shops at 18s. 6d.; that intending purchasers applying for permits to buy are advised to purchase from the committee's stores to the detriment of traders; and whether such sales are made at a profit or otherwise.

Mr. Hudson: On investigation I find that some of the barbed wire referred to in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 12th October was sold by the Gloucestershire War Agricultural Executive Committee at a profit and at prices in excess of the normal retail price. Farmers applying for permits to buy wire were in some cases advised to purchase from the committee's stock if that suited their convenience, but they could if they wished obtain permits to purchase from their own dealers, and in some instances such permits were in fact issued. As soon as these transactions came to the notice of my Department instructions were given that retail sales should cease.

Captain Strickland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will issue instructions that all surplus stocks held by war agricultural committees shall be disposed of through the usual trade channels.

Mr. Hudson: It is not anticipated that any appreciable quantities of stocks of goods held by county war agricultural executive committees for use in the food production campaign will become surplus to requirements for some time. As and when stocks do become redundant they will be disposed of by my Department in accordance with the general principles and procedure set out in the White Paper on Government Surplus Stores (Cmd. 6539) published in July last.

Mr. Parker: Surely it is the job of war agricultural committees to do their best to serve the farmers under them by making supplies available as early as possible? They can do that after the war as well as during the war.

Machinery Pools

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture how far machinery pools on a neighbourhood basis have come into being; whether they are being encouraged by county war executive committees; and what is the attitude of his Department towards them.

Mr. Hudson: There are about 100 groups of farmers operating machinery pools in ten counties in England and Wales. War agricultural executive committees have been responsible for starting the groups and are doing what they can, encouraged by my Department, to assist in the formation of new groups.

Policy

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he anticipates it will be possible to make a statement upon the future agricultural policy of this country; and whether he can give an assurance that the recommendations contained in the recent Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on this subject will be taken into account in the preparation of that policy.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Wright) on 28th September.

Mr. Salt: Has my right hon. Friend seen the leading article in last week's "Economist"? If so does he not agree that the policy enunciated there will very much perturb the agricultural community?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he adds nothing to nothing, the answer is still nothing?

Soil Heating (Russian Experiments)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the farming experiments being conducted by the Soviet authorities in the Arctic, under which extensive fields of cabbage, potatoes and other plants are successfully grown under Arctic conditions


in electrically warmed soil; and what progress is being made in this country with regard to research and development in connection with the warming of soil by artificial means.

Mr. Hudson: No official information is available with regard to the experiments referred to in the first part of the Question. Work on soil heating by various means, including electricity, has been carried out in this country for some years, mainly in connection with crops grown under glass. Particulars of the various methods available will be found in Bulletin No. 65 issued by my Department, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Potato Crop (Man-power)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state what steps he is taking to assist the farmers in finding labour to meet the difficulty in gathering in the potato crop which is being delayed through wet weather.

Mr. Hudson: The more important steps taken include enlisting the further help of the Navy, Army and Air Force, and of the Civil Defence Services; employing German prisoners to the extent of 16,000; and using the services of Italian prisoners transferred from land drainage or borrowed from other Departments.

Wheat, Rye and Potatoes (Acreage Payments)

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is proposed to continue the acreage subsidy for wheat, rye and potatoes for the coming year; and whether he is aware that the delay in making any announcement with regard to this is causing considerable difficulty to members of war agricultural committees in making their assessments.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. It is proposed that part of the price of wheat, rye and potatoes harvested in 1945 shall continue to be in the form of an acreage payment. An announcement about the rates of acreage payment and market prices will be made as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, until those announcements are made, farmers cannot be expected to sign their assessment forms to show that they are willing to grow an unpopular crop like potatoes?

Mr. Hudson: It will not be necessary to take that decision until the Spring.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: The assessments have to be made now, and will the Minister hurry up with the announcement?

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask if this is a private conversation?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATHS FROM ENEMY ACTION (FUNERALS)

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for those killed by enemy action in this country to be buried free of charge with the same honour due to a man killed on active service.

Mr. Willink: Unless the relatives of the deceased desire a private funeral, the burial of persons killed by enemy action is, under the Defence Regulations, carried out by the public health authority and the cost does not fall on the relatives or friends. Local authorities have been informed that funerals should be carried out with proper dignity, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular sent to them on the 1st November, 1940.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that few relatives of those killed in the blitz are aware of this regulation? Has any publicity been given to it?

Mr. Willink: My recollection is that publicity was given to it at the time, but the hon. Lady will realise that it was at the height of the blitz in the autumn of 1940. However, local authorities should certainly take, and I think in most cases have taken, full note of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

University Grants

Mr. Salt: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to give any estimate as to the increased grants which will be made available to the universities to assist them in making post-war plans, particularly in connection with rebuilding research and the training of a larger number of scientists.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): No, Sir. I am not yet in


a position to add to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) on 28th September.

Teachers' Pension Increases

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what progress has already been made in giving effect to the Pensions (Increase) Act, so far as teachers are concerned; and how long it will be before all existing pensioners so entitled will be in receipt of their increased pensions.

Mr. Assheton: Teachers' pensions are paid by the Paymaster-General who will assess and pay the supplements under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Regulations were made in June last to give effect to the Act which was passed in the preceding month. Thereafter Instructions to pensioners and Application Forms were prepared and printed, and these have been issued to over 55,000 retired teachers and 42,000 claims to increase have been received, and are being dealt with as rapidly as possible with a limited staff. It is hoped to make additional staff available as priority services permit, but I cannot at present give an estimate for the completion of the work.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of how many of the 44,000 claims have been dealt with?

Mr. Assheton: I am afraid I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that information now, but I will let him know.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Russia

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many applications have been received from British firms to advertise goods in Russia; how many have been accepted and rejected, respectively; and in respect of what value of advertising.

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade): The hon. Member's Question does not specify any period but the first application during this year was received on the nth August last, since when 47 requests have been received by the Foreign Exchange Control involving a total expenditure of

£9,600. To date 23 applications have been approved and 24 are under consideration; so far none has been rejected.

Mr. Hogg: Did my right hon. Friend observe the statement in the Press to the effect that American firms were receiving better facilities than British firms in this respect?

Mr. Johnstone: I did not observe it but, if it was there, it was not true.

Sir H. Williams: Since all the goods imported into Russia from this country are bought by a Russian delegation in London, is not the only place to advertise through the buyers, because the customers in Russia have no choice?

Mr. Johnstone: I think that is roughly the truth. The sole buying authority in Russia does, in fact, buy through its trade delegation abroad. The advertisement of goods in Russia could have some effect but obviously it cannot have the same effect as where goods are bought by tens of thousands of buyers.

Mr. Shinwell: But has not bulk purchase by the Soviet delegation here and elsewhere brought great benefit to the people of Russia? Would it not be desirable if we adopted the same policy of bulk purchase?

Mr. Johnstone: That is a totally different question.

Clothing Coupons

Sir T. Moore: asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is proposed to increase the allowance of clothing coupons.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on Friday last.

Sir T. Moore: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend either repeat that statement, or else follow the excellent example of the Minister of Food and give us same outer comfort as well as inner warmth this winter?

Rubber Teats

Mr. Mort: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that rubber teats for babies' feeding bottles are unobtainable in Swansea; and will he take steps to remedy the position.

Captain Waterhouse: As my right hon. Friend stated on 26th September, a substantial increase has been made in the allocation of rubber for the manufacture of teats, and I am glad to say that the manufacturers have since reported large increases in their weekly production. Steps are being taken to ensure that all parts of the country receive the benefit of these increases, but a special inquiry is being made into the position at Swansea.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL, NOTTINGHAM

Mr. Shephard: asked the Attorney-General the date of the last meeting of the Pensions Appeals Tribunal in Nottingham; when the tribunal will meet there again; and how many appeals are awaiting hearing at this centre.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): A pensions appeal tribunal is sitting at Nottingham at the present time, and there have been sittings there in every week since 7th August, with the exception of the week beginning 14th August. The present series of sittings terminate this week, when all the cases listed for hearing will have been decided or otherwise disposed of. Some 55 new appeals from the East Midlands area have been received at the pensions appeal office since 25th September, too late for inclusion in the lists for the present sittings; these cases will be taken at the next series of sittings at Nottingham which begin on 27th November.

Mr. Shephard: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what steps he is taking to increase the number of these appeal tribunals in order to avoid delays?

The Attorney-General: I think, so far as Nottingham is concerned, the tribunal is well up to its work, and has disposed of the cases before it. I do not think there is really a case for further tribunals so far as Nottingham is concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION (PRIVATE WOODLANDS)

Lady Apsley: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether, in view of the national importance of home-grown hard woods, he can now say what financial assistance and priorities in

labour, fencing and materials, will be given to growers whose prime beech, oak and ash have been requisitioned by the Ministry of Supply, resulting in devastated woodlands, and who are willing to replant.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): Proposals, including financial assistance, for the rehabilitation of private woodlands are under consideration by the Government. The Forestry Commissioners anticipate that when the state of the war permits an adequate allocation of labour and materials will be made for implementing an approved policy.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether any financial assistance given may not be linked with the admirable scheme of dedication of woodlands proposed by the Forestry Commission in their Report?

Sir G. Courthope: I hope it will be so.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: May I ask if the Government are considering the fact that many of these destroyed woodlands were in industrial districts and that consequently they provided great amenity as well as being of value to the community?

Sir G. Courthope: I hope all the material considerations will be kept in view.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN PROTECTORATES (REST COMPOUNDS)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps have been taken to organise rest compounds for migratory labour along the main routes of the outlying parts of the African protectorates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): Legislation is in force in Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland, providing for rest camps and for medical attention for migratory native labour where the extent of the movement of labour makes this necessary. My Noble Friend is making inquiries from the High Commissioner as to the measures taken to implement this legislation, and I will give my hon. and gallant Friend particulars as soon as they are received.

Colonel Lyons: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the permissive legislation has ever brought about any result, and, if so, what?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LINCOLN CITY (COOLING TOWERS)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the Electricity Commissioners are now in a position to announce the result of their recent inquiry regarding the erection of cooling towers in the city of Lincoln.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The Electricity Commissioners expect to be in a position to issue the result of their recent Inquiry at Lincoln within the course of the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE AND BRIDGE SCHEMES

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has received the report of the Committee set up to consider the advisability, or otherwise, of the Severn Barrage, and, if not, when does he expect it; and whether this Committee are considering it in conjunction with the suggested bridge for which the Government has promised first priority.

Mr. Tom Smith: As my right hon. and gallant Friend informed my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), on 24th October, the report has been received and arrangements are being made for it to be published as soon as possible. In the report the Committee recommend that proposals for a road and rail bridge should be considered independently.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (HOUSING, DALMUIR)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the unhealthy conditions prevailing in the emergency concrete-block houses provided by Clydebank Town Council in Dunn Street, Dalmuir, where the houses are damp, the roofs leak and water trickles into the rooms through the blocks not being properly sealed; and will he take prompt steps to prevent the consequent injury to health, ruin of furniture and damage to food caused by bad drainage and poor workmanship.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Immediately my right hon. Friend's attention was drawn to the conditions existing in these emergency houses, he arranged for experiments to be carried out to find a remedy for the defects complained of. The final results will be known in a few days, and it is confidently hoped that it will then be possible to have the houses put right. My hon. Friend can rest assured that every possible step will be taken to that end.

Mr. Kirkwood: May we take it, then, that we shall be quite in order in telling these folk that they need not pay any rent until their houses are made, according to law, wind and water tight?

Mr. Westwood: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is a most natural question, arising out of the original reply.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Is the statement in the Question an example of the efficiency of public enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (CIVIL ADMINISTRATION)

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangement or agreement has been made with the Government of Burma regarding the administration of civil affairs in Burma during the period of liberation.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Burma that the Force Commander in Burma shall be vested with full administrative powers, and be assisted by a Civil Affairs Staff acquainted with the country and the people; and that as soon as operational conditions permit, normal civil administration under the Government of Burma will be resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will state the Business of the House for next week?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes. Sir, the Business of the House for next week will be as follows:
On Tuesday, 31st.October, I will myself move the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, after


which the Committee and, if possible, the remaining stages of the Matrimonial Causes Bill [Lords] will be taken.
On Wednesday, 1st November, there will be a Debate on Shipping, which will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
On Thursday and Friday, 2nd and 3rd November, there will be a Debate on the Social Insurance White Paper, which will arise on the Government Motion which is already on the Order Paper.

[That this House welcomes the intention of His Majesty's Government, declared in the White Paper presented to Parliament, to establish an enlarged and unified scheme of social insurance and a system of family allowances.]

Mr. Greenwood: May I assume that the Debate on Thursday and Friday will be on Part I of the White Paper, and not Part II?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir P. Harris: As the right hon. Gentleman, instead of the Home Secretary, is to move the Second Reading of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill, is there any special significance in the statement which he proposes to make?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but naturally, in moving a Bill of such vital consequence to our lives, I should feel it my duty to make a few introductory remarks which may be of general interest.

Sir H. Williams: Is it intended to proceed this Session with the two Bills which were presented to-day?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, we do not expect to pass those Bills this Session.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Prime Minister anticipate that we shall be given an opportunity of discussing the Government's demobilisation plans, only part of which have been issued, namely, that relating to the Forces? The other part relating to civil industry has not yet appeared. Can we have a Debate this Session?

The Prime Minister: We hope the matter may be discussed a little later in the present Session.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: There is a Motion in my name, and the names of about 250

other Members of the House, relating to the period of overseas service in the Army. In view of the widespread interest in the House and elsewhere in this matter, would my right hon. Friend give us an opportunity of discussing it at greater length than we have had an opportunity to discuss it in the past?

[That this House urges His Majesty's Government to take the necessary measures to reduce the period of Overseas Service in the Army to three years at the earliest possible moment.]

The Prime Minister: I was very sorry to see that Motion on the Order Paper, because I think it might do definite harm to the war effort at the present time. I was a little surprised that my hon. Friend did not take a little counsel with the responsible Ministers before committing himself to this. We are at the most grim moment in the war, and while everybody wishes, and would like, to achieve what is the purpose of this Motion, I am certainly not in a position to make releases on that scale from the Army at this moment, without running the risk of prolonging the war and causing our efforts to fail or be weakened just when they must be maintained right up to the climax. Therefore, I regret that false hopes should be raised in the minds of soldiers by the appearance of this Motion. I hope many of my hon. Friends will dissociate themselves from it.

Mr. Tinker: Would the Prime Minister give consideration to suspending the Rule on one of the days set aside for discussion of the White Paper on Social Insurance? Many Members want to take part. Perhaps Thursday's time could be extended?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that on the first day of the Debate some consideration should be given to that.

Mr. A. Bevan: Would the Prime Minister take it for granted that all the considerations mentioned by him in his unnecessary admonition to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) were taken into account by the 250 Members who signed the Motion? We have on several occasions tried to get a discussion in the House of Commons on this matter, and the only way open to us was to put a Motion on the Order Paper and ask for such a discussion. Will he, therefore, take it for granted that in bringing this matter to the


attention of the House, we considered the state of mind of the troops in India and Burma?

Colonel Greenwell: May we take it that next Wednesday's Debate on Shipping will include an opportunity to discuss British shipbuilding?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am advised that it certainly would.

Sir Edward Grigg: Since the justice of the admonition given earlier by the Prime Minister has been called in question, may I assure him that many Members are in accord with him?

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member want to ask a question? We cannot have a Debate.

Mr. Hogg: I want to ask another question, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way desiring to comment upon my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask if he realises that what was desired was not to raise false hopes, but to get a further statement from the Government which would satisfy the relatives of the men concerned, and the men themselves?

The Prime Minister: That object has, at least in part, been attained.

Mr. Buchanan: Could not the Prime Minister have made himself aware of the deep feeling that existed on this matter and, before he lectured the people who put their names to the Motion relating to overseas service, could he not have seen that all this would have been avoided by a little tact and decency on the part of some of his fellow Cabinet Ministers?

The Prime Minister: Everyone's desire would be to give effect to this but I am advised that it would be quite impossible to do so without causing injuries which we are all united in desiring to avoid.

Mr. Buchanan: This need never have arisen if Cabinet Ministers had handled the matter differently.

The Prime Minister: I should be very reluctant to associate myself with blame of particular Ministers whose conduct on the occasion in question I was not personally able to witness.

Dr. Haden Guest: Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to

the request for a short Debate to-morrow when he makes his statement, as hon. Members may wish to offer suggestions as well as to ask a few questions?

The Prime Minister: We hope there will not be a Debate which will spoil the Debate on house repairs in London, but the statement will be made on the Adjournment, and I am in the hands of the House and of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stephen: Is it intended to sit late to-night?

The Prime Minister: We must get the Town and Country Planning Bill to-night.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.

BILLS PRESENTED

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to amend the law relating to education in Scotland"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Westwood and Mr. Allan Chapman; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

LICENSING PLANNING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

"to make temporary provision as to justices' licences in war-damaged areas and certain areas related to war-damaged areas"; presented by Mr. Herbert Morrison; supported by Mr. W. S. Morrison, the Attorney-General and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (Re-Committed) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th October.]

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

NEW CLAusE.—(Supplement to Compensation in case of owner-occupiers.)

(1) Where the person entitled to compensation assessed subject to the rule set out in subsection (1) of the section of this Act (Assessment of compensation) for the purchase of an interest in land consisting of or comprising a building (not being agricultural property) or consisting of or comprising agricultural property (that is to say, agricultural land or agricultural. buildings as defined in section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, or a farmhouse) is an owner-occupier, he shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, not exceeding the maximum hereinafter specified, as may be reasonable having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest.

(2) The maximum for the sum which may be paid under this section in respect of an interest in land as consisting of or comprising a building shall be—

(a) where the interest in question is the fee simple, thirty per cent. of the value of the building ascertained by reference to prices current at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine;
(b) where the interest in question is a tenancy, the amount by which the value of the tenancy in the building ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March falls short of the value of the tenancy in the building ascertained by reference to prices thirty per cent. greater than those current at that date.

(3) The maximum for the sum which may be paid under this section in respect of an interest in land as consisting of or comprising agricultural property shall be the amount (if any) by which—

(a) the value of the interest in the agricultural property ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, falls short of
(b) the value of the interest in the agricultural property ascertained by reference to prices thirty per cent. greater than those current at that date and on the assumption that that property had been at that date subject to a permanent restriction to use as agricultural property within the meaning of this section.

(4) In making any valuation of a building, of a tenancy in a building or of an interest in agricultural property, which is required for fixing either of the said maxima it shall be assumed that the building or property had been at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, in the state in which it in fact was at the time of service of the notice to treat, except that, in a case in which the building or property has sustained war damage any of which has not been made good at that time and in respect of which the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, would apart from the compulsory purchase be a payment of cost of works, it shall be assumed that the building or property had been on,the said thirty-first day of March in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage.

(5) The person entitled to compensation for the purchase of an interest in land consisting of or comprising a building or agricultural property shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be an owner-occupier if any of the following conditions are satisfied, and not otherwise, that is to say—

(a) if he is in occupation of the building or property at the time of service of the notice to treat;
(b) in the case of a building or property so damaged at that time as not to be fit for occupation, if he was in occupation thereof when the damage occurred;
(c) in the case of a building or property of which possession has been taken without other title by virtue of any enactment and has not been given up before that time, if he was

in occupation thereof when possession was so taken; or
(d) if—

(i) the title under which the building or property is held at that time is such that he then has the right to enter into occupation thereof or will be in a position to obtain that right within five years from that time, and
(ii) it was at that time his intention, subject to its being possible for him so to do, to enter into occupation of the building or property within the said five years, or, if it is so damaged as not to be fit for occupation, to cause it to be restored for his occupation, or to enter into occupation of premises to be substitued therefor, within the said five years.

(6) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection—

(a) references to the person entitled to the compensation shall, where that person holds as trustee or otherwise for the benefit of another or subject to the directions of another, be construed subject to such adaptations as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor;
(b) references to occupation of a building or property include references to occupation of a part thereof;
(c) a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment;
(d) no regard shall be had to any impediment to a right to enter into occupation arising from the subsistence of a tenancy which, by virtue of the Validation of War-Time Leases Act, 1944, or otherwise, is for a term having more than five years to run at the time of service of the notice to treat but is subject to a right on the part of the landlord to determine the tenancy by notice after the end of the war if it ends before the expiration of that term, or arising from the operation of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939 (or of any enactment amending or replacing any enactment in those Acts), or arising from the subsistence by virtue of any enactment of a right to possession of land without other title thereto.

(7) In this section the expression "farmhouse" means a house used as the dwelling-house of a person who is primarily engaged in carrying out or directing agricultural operations on land in the neighbourhood of the house.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

12.12 p.m.

Wing-Commander James: I desire to ask one or two questions on this Clause. Is the definition of owner-occupier sufficiently clear?

Dr. Haden Guest: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman speak up? We cannot hear a word.

The Deputy-Chairman: If hon. Members would listen, they might be able to hear.

Wing-Commander James: On page 55 I find an interpretation of the word "owner" but no interpretation of "owner-occupier." May I illustrate my difficulty by quoting an actual case of a man who owns and lives in one house and owns two others in one of which his elderly mother lives while the third is let to a family who have been blitzed out of their house. In neither case does he receive any rent. Therefore, he is not an investor. Is he deemed to be an owner-occupier or not? And, arising from those two illustrations, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the absence of a definition will not at a later stage lead to complications? I have asked one or two legal Members and they could not supply me with an answer, Therefore, there is probably something that needs clearing up.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The interpretation Clause in the Bill does not contain a definition of "owner-occupier" but this new Clause does. Sub-section (5, c) is devoted to the task of defining "owner-occupier" for the purposes of the Clause. If my hon. and gallant Friend reads it he will find an answer to his question.

Captain Duncan: I should like to ask a question with reference to Sub-section (6, c). Does that mean that a person must be in occupation in the daytime only or has he to sleep there? Is every bank manager of a branch bank and every co-operative society manager of every branch of a co-operative society in occupation under this interpretation? It seems very unfair that the big people, multiple stores and banks, should be included whereas small persons are discriminated against.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I am concerned from the point of view of agriculture If co-operative people are owner-occupiers, surely an estate owner is the occupier of his own cottages and his workmen's cottages, and also his tenants' cottages. I understand

that the Solicitor-General is to give some explanation. I hope that in doing so he will remember the countryside.

12.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The purpose of the Clause is to deal with cases where premises are occupied by persons employed by an individual for the purpose of their employment. It would include agricultural workers' cottages where the agricultural worker lives in a cottage belonging to the farmer for the purpose of work on the farm, but it would not necessarily cover tenants' cottages. With regard to banks and co-operative stores, I think my hon. and gallant Friend is probably under a misapprehension. In the case of a bank or a big organisation like a co-operative stores, it is the bank or the corporation or company which is in occupation of all the various premises. The manager of a particular branch is not regarded as being in occupation of that branch. I know that many bank managers have a residence which is a part of the building in which the branch is located. Suppose that he was in law an occupier—and I am not sure whether he would be—and suppose he was rated as occupier in respect of the part of the building in which he lived, then he would come under this Clause; but the normal position in respect of banks and stores is that the occupation is that of the corporation. Therefore I think the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend on the assumption that the manager was treated as being in occupation is based on a misapprehension, but if I have not followed his point he will perhaps enlighten me.

Captain Duncan: I want to get this clear. The Clause says:
If it is in the occupation of a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment.
A bank manager occupies the bank premises for the purposes of his employment during the day time.

The Attorney-General: But he is not in law the occupier. In law the bank is treated as the occupier, and not the manager.

Captain Duncan: The wording of the Clause does not say so. According to the Clause,
a person shall be treated as in occupation of a building or property if it is in the occupation of a person in his employment.

The Attorney-General: The branch of the bank is not in the occupation of the manager.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: From what was said in the course of the speeches yesterday I understood there was a disturbance allowance for the owner who occupies a house if he is disturbed and has to leave the house and find other accommodation. In the case of the tenant-occupier there is disturbance also, because the tenant has to find another house. Will this disturbance money, which is what it amounts to, be given equally to the tenant-occupier, and if not why not?

Mr. Turton: I am very sorry that the Minister in moving this Clause did it in so cursory a manner, because many of the points raised yesterday really arise on this Clause rather than on yesterday's Clause, and I was not satisfied with the way in which the Minister left the position yesterday. I realise that he could not, without being out of order, have gone into the matter further then. A curious position is revealed by comparing the proposed new Clause with Sub-section (5) of Clause 27 of the Bill. I gather from the part of the Bill which has already been dealt with that we are to compensate both the owner-occupier and the tenant-occupier for disturbance of his business—that is done by Sub-section (5) of Clause 27—and here we are giving the owner-occupier a higher scale of compensation by allowing a 30 per cent. increase on the 1939 price. As far as I can see, everybody will now be covered in respect of disturbance except the man who is occupying his residence but who is not an owner-occupier. The tenant-occupier will be displaced without any compensation, and if that is the position then this Clause is making an unfair discrimination against the tenant-occupier in favour of the owner-occupier. In the case of business premises there is not that unfair discrimination, because the matter is put right by Sub-section (5) of Clause 27.
Another thing I would ask is that we should at some later stage have all these compensation provisions put together. It is very unsatisfactory to have one part of the Bill, Clause 27 (5), dealing with compensation partially, dealing with businesses, and then, under this new Clause,

to select people for compensation not on account of their businesses but on the basis of whether they are owner-occupiers or tenant-occupiers. Take the case of a colliery village. All the miners' cottages will be on the plus 30 per cent. level. If there is a tenant in that village who is not a tenant of the colliery company he will get only the 1939 price and no more, and that will be a very great hardship. I think the Minister ought to justify this discrimination, and so far he has failed to do so.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I seek an explanation, but it seems to me the position is this: that a wealthy landowner who has a large estate and who farms it all himself, letting the houses. on his estate be occupied by persons in his employment, will, if any part of that estate is acquired by the local authority, be entitled to the 1939 price plus 30 per cent. I would like to be clear in my mind whether that is the position in such a case, and also whether a less wealthy landowner, who has an estate which he is trying to keep going because it is for the benefit of the community in that part of the country, and who has let off part of that estate as farms, and also lets off houses, and, it may be, has a number of cottages on the estate in which his old pensioners are living free of rent—I would ask whether, in respect of any of the property on his estate which is let or is occupied not for the purposes of employment but by former employees at a low or nominal rent or, it may be, occupied by friends or relations, that particular owner will get only the 1939 prices with no possibility of a supplement at all. I think that is the position, but I am not sure.

Sir Irving Albery: On the question of the occupying tenant, which has been raised by an hon. and gallant Friend in front of me, there is a case which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It appears to me that in a case where a man owns two rent-restricted houses which are requisitioned under this Bill that on the house which he himself occupies he will get an addition to the 1939 price up to 30 per cent. but that the tenant of the other house will suffer very considerable hardship. He will he turned out of a rent-restricted house and, if he is lucky enough to get another house in the neighbourhood at


all, his rent will be much more, and yet he will get no compensation under this Bill.

Sir Percy Harris: The last two speakers have raised an interesting and far reaching issue. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), as I understand, was concerned that a landlord who let the tenants of his cottages live rent free should get compensation on the plus 30 per cent. terms.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was merely pointing out what I understood to be the effect of this Clause, and asking the Attorney-General to tell us whether that was the effect.

Sir P. Harris: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Member. It appears that he was merely asking for information and was not making out a case. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) raised another issue, and one which I raised yesterday in a different form. The question is whether a tenant who is covered by the rent-restriction legislation is to get any compensation under any of this machinery. I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend will answer "No." I have felt that throughout these discussions there has been tremendous interest in the occupying landowner but very little sympathy for the position of tenants. Practically all my constituents are merely tenants, weekly tenants, and I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that a tenant whether in a town or in a country village will get no compensation at all. I assume that the tenant is not covered and I would like to see him covered. The point affects the bulk of persons in this country who occupy houses.

Sir George Schuster: I have understood from what has been told us by Ministers during the discussions on this Bill that we are concerned not with land or property as such but with interests in land. I further understand that the 30 per cent. allowance is to be regarded entirely as a personal allowance. The words in the Clause are extremely wide:
Having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected by the purchase of the interest.

Before we finish with the Bill are we to have any enlightenment upon how those words are to be interpreted? Let me put one illustrative question to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I hope it may not be taken to imply any sympathy with one side or the other. Suppose there are in a town two shops side by side, one belonging to Woolworths and the other to a well known local citizen and representing the whole of his business. [An HON. MEMBER: "A widow."] A widow if you like. When the public authority come to consider the question of compensation will they be entitled to say "Here are Woolworths; all their affairs are owned by Miss Barbara Hutton, who lives at Hollywood; they have pots of money and it does not matter to them, because when they are moved they can find other premises; but next door is this poor widow whose whole livelihood is involved. She must get the full 30 per cent. but Woolworths can be perfectly satisfied with the 1939 price." Is that the type of consideration which has to be taken into account? I am merely asking the question and putting forward an extreme case. One can imagine all sorts of variations of the case. My point is that the words in the Clause are very vague, and that it will be difficult to have these matters arranged with anything like even-handed justice unless some further definition is provided.
12.30 p.m.
The second question is the position of the owner of land comprising a house. Again we are told it is only his interest that we have to consider. Supposing there is an owner of land and buildings which, in 1939, were let on a lease which had 15 years and one month to run, and, supposing that property is acquired compulsorily in 1949, it will then have five years and one month to run. I am not an expert on real property, but I take it that if that building is a valuable building, and the land is let at a rent which is substantially less than a rack rent, the value of the reversion, when there are only five years and one month to run, is something very much greater than it was when there were 15 years and one month to run. I want to know whether that is to be taken into account in valuing the interest or whether it is to be put back to 1939, with 15 years and one month to run.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am very glad to see the Attor-


ney-General on the Treasury Bench because he was very urgent—I think it was yesterday or on some earlier stage—in his advice to the Committee that we should not just shoot undefined, and even undefinable, questions at the head of an arbitrator in the optimistic hope that he will be able to catch them and analyse them, and throw the right answers back. I may be misunderstanding, and I certainly am not understanding, the words in lines 8 to 11 of this Clause, but they seem, after what, I must admit, is only a cursory inspection, to have that effect. I do not want to pose as a lawyer. I never succeeded in passing the final, although I got up to that point. I thought "interest" was a rather technical word especially in connection with land. We have had "interest" bandied about by the Minister, and certainly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am sorry to say, is not here to-day. The word has been used in a lot of senses which, I think, lawyers would have found very remarkable. We were pretending that we were going to pay everybody compensation. Compensation means counterbalance, the rendering of an equivalent requital or recompense. Those are the primary meanings of the word "compensation."

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the point under discussion. We are now dealing with owner-occupiers.

Mr. Pickthorn: With respect, Mr. Williams, we are dealing with supplements to compensation, and it is quite impossible to define the supplementation until one has some notion up to what point that which is to be supplemented can rise. I would not for the world be in conflict with you, Mr. Williams, or with the Chair, but I think it quite impossible for the Committee to understand this Clause without paying some attention to the meaning of the word "compensation." As long as compensation meant a global equivalent to a global something which had been taken away or removed, then a supplement to that was something which you could begin to define from its bottom edge. But now it is going to be very difficult to define it in that way. The Clause says:
he shall be entitled to receive, etc."—

that is, the person who is entitled to what is called in the Clause "a supplement." In my submission it would really be a completion of compensation, but in order to get out of our political difficulty we are calling it a supplement. How is the arbitrator to find out what amount of supplement is due? The Clause says that the applicant shall be entitled to receive as a supplement
such sum, if any … as may be reasonable having regard to the extent to which, in all the circumstances of his occupation, he is affected.
I want to know whether this has become a purely personal matter. Is the affectation of the claimant purely a personal matter, or does it remain a real matter, because, on the face of the words here and reading them with an average knowledge of literary English—not as a lawyer—it would seem that what matters is the extent to which that person is personally affected. It may be argued that he is more affected if his family for three generations has been there, or it may be argued that he is more affected if he has six or seven children, because a man with six or seven children dislikes moving house more than a man without a wife. Or, again, if he is a keen cricketer and goes in first in the village cricket team, if it is a personal matter, then, in that case, the arbitrator would give him rather more.
I do not want to elaborate this excessively, and I do beg the Committee to believe that I am not being facetious. Are the factors to be taken into account, the changes in the price levels for land and building there or thereabouts, or the predictable changes in such things, or the general change in the value of the currency? Are they to be the personal circumstances of the man? In ordinary language they would not seem to be, and yet I had supposed from the earlier arguments of Ministers that these were the things to be taken into account. If they are, I think the words on the Paper do not clearly indicate these things, and I think that ought to be very clearly stated here. Even then, I would ask the Committee to remember that what is stated here by the Attorney-General or Ministers will not bind the courts.

Wing-Commander James: May I put an actual case to the Minister and ask who is the owner-occupier in that case?


A widow—the one we all know so well—occupies a house. She does not own it; she is the occupier for life under her deceased husband's will. She pays the rates, but does not own the fee simple. Her son owns the fee simple, although he will not have occupation until the old lady's death. Which, in that case, if either, is the owner-occupier?

The Attorney-General: I will do my best to answer these questions. Let me deal, first with the general question raised by a number of hon. Members of the relationship between an occupier who is given a right under this Clause, and a tenant under what is now Clause 27. We are only dealing in this group of Clauses with compensation given in respect of an interest in land which is acquired. That is to say, the local authority have said to A, "You have an interest in this land, and we are going to acquire it." That interest, in the simplest case, is the whole of the fee simple. It may be a 99 years' lease, it may be a leasehold interest of a considerable period. Suppose I have a house in one of these areas, a house in which I do not live, but which I let to someone on a quarterly tenancy. Let us assume there is no rent restriction. The local authority come along and say, "What interest in this property is it necessary to buy? "The only interest which it is necessary for them to buy is my interest because, having got my interest, they can give the tenant three months' notice. They will not want to do anything, such as pulling down the house, within three months or so, in that case, the only interest they buy is my interest.
That applies to the large majority of tenants. The majority of tenants would not have an interest which the acquiring authority would want to purchase, and, therefore, the compensation for an occupier, or an owner-occupier, does not arise in their cases, and they do not qualify under this Clause. That is precisely why, as was explained at an earlier period in our proceedings, we asked the Committee to accept what was then Clause 25 and is now Clause 27. Again, realising that, the ordinary tenant—the weekly, monthly, quarterly or, possibly, yearly tenant—would not get any right to compensation under whatever form the compensation claim took because the acquiring authority would not acquire his interest,

we put in the Bill the provisions in Clause 27, and I need only refer quite shortly to two of them. I realise these questions have been raised because the Committee want to get the whole picture. Sub-section (1) of Clause 27 puts on the local authority the duty, so far as possible, and,
in so far as there is no other residential accommodation on reasonable terms, to secure the provision of such accommodation in advance of the displacement.
It also gives a power which was discussed at some length, under Sub-section (5) to make payments to those displaced to cover the cost of removal, and so on, although they would not be entitled to the owner-occupier's compensation which we are now discussing. That is the whole picture. The normal tenant will not come under these Clauses because he will not have an interest of sufficient duration. He is provided for in the other part of the Bill, under Clause 27, under which a duty is placed on the local authority to see that there is reasonable accommodation available, and there is power to make payment towards expenses.

Mr. Turton: On that point, will he have that right if it is purely a residential occupation? Will he then get removal expenses and nothing else?

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Attorney-General make clear what happens to the many tenants who are occupying houses under the Rent Restriction Acts which give them a guarantee of tenure to that extent?

The Attorney-General: If the local authority acquire the house, the tenant can be given notice like anybody else. He does not become the owner-occupier by virtue of the Rent Restriction Act.

The Deputy-Chairman: If we are to have long series of questions which ultimately turn into speeches on Clause 27, I would suggest that these, really, should be reserved for the Third Reading.

12.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: May I deal with one or two of the other points that have been raised?

Mr. Woodburn: May I respectfully put to the Chair that these small points of detail are raised with the object of getting


the Bill through at the earliest possible moment, and that it would be undesirable if the only way in which they can be put is in speeches on Third Reading?

The Deputy-Chairman: Actually this point has been dealt with in Clause 27, and we cannot go back to that. I allowed the question and the answer, although it was really outside the bounds of Order, for I thought it was as well that the point should be cleared up, but the Committee ought now to come back to the new Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: There are a great number of people paying rent under the Rent Restriction Acts, and they are worried about what is to happen to them if they are removed under this Bill. The Attorney-General was on the point of answering it, and he may have answered it, but I did not hear what the answer was. I hope that you will allow him to make the point clear.

The Deputy-Chairman: The answer is in Clause 27. I did not object to the Attorney-General answering the point, but we must not develop it.

The Attorney-General: I do not think I can say more than that the position of those tenants who have not a sufficient interest in the land to make it necessary for the authority to acquire it are dealt with under what is now Clause 27. The provisions were fully discussed when we were dealing with that Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I ask a question which arises on this new Clause about rent restriction?

The Attorney-General: I have passed that. It is out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must really appeal to the Committee to allow the Attorney-General to proceed. If anything is left out it can be asked on Third Reading.

The Attorney-General: Let me come to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I was sorry that he seemed to associate himself, in the presentation of his argument, with the form of presentation which, I am bound to say, I rather deplored when it was used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn

Hughes) the other day. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry seems to think that it makes some difference whether it is the wealthy landowner who farms his own farm and a less wealthy landowner who creates leases, and that it makes some difference whether his relations are employed, and that kind of thing. It is most unfortunate that that form of presentation should be put forward. Some people may believe in it, but I think it is profoundly wrong. Therefore, I regret that my hon. Friend allowed himself to be led into it. Let me tell him that the landowner who farms his own estate, whether he is wealthy or impoverished, whether he goes to church or not on Sundays, will be entitled as a disturbed occupier to the compensation under this Bill; Whereas the landowner who has let his property or part of it will, whether he is poor or rich, not get compensation for disturbance, for the very good reason that he is not disturbed.
What will be the position of the tenant? It will, of course, be unaltered to this extent, that the acquiring authority will acquire the rights of the landowner. If part of the estate is let out on a 30 years' lease or something of that sort, the acquiring authority will probably have to acquire the leaseholds of the tenants; but assuming they are ordinary yearly tenants, the acquiring authority will acquire the estate or the interest of the landowner. It will have the rights that the landowner has to terminate the tenancies, and the farmers will have all the rights they have under the elaborate structure of the Agricultural Holdings Act in respect of disturbance if their tenancies are brought to an end. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) took the case of an owner of two rent restricted houses, one of which he occupied and the other of which he did not. He gets the right to apply for the 30 per cent. increase in respect of the house he occupies because he is disturbed. He does not get that right in respect of the house which he does not occupy. That is what we were discussing yesterday. The position of the tenant of the second house is dealt with by Clause 27. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) also raised that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) both put a perfectly fair


point. The hon. Member for Cambridge University said, "The Attorney-General said yesterday that it is very difficult to throw general words at the arbitrator, but here are very general words in this Clause." I quite agree. If we could have drawn up a precise code we would have done so, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the arbitrators will not particularly welcome having these very wide words used in the Clause. We did not, however, see any other way out of the difficulty. If we started to be precise we would get into difficulties and, possibly, eliminate the circumstances or factors which we desire to be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall took the cases of two shops in a town, one of which was Woolworths, the shares in which were not owned by a widow, but by someone who lived across the seas—

Mr. Woodburn: A grass widow.

The Attorney-General: —and the other shop was owned by a widow. My hon. Friend asked whether that made any difference. The answer is "No." These facts should make no difference. We feel that it is very hard to be precise in this matter and that is why we left the arbitrator wide discretion. For instance, take the case of a man who has a shop. It may make all the difference to him whether he can get another shop in very much the same part of the city and, therefore, he may say, "To get another shop of an equivalent size in this part of the city I have had to pay a sum which entitles me to the 30 per cent." He might be told that if he went to a new area he would not have that expense. It would not be right to exclude personal circumstances and factors altogether. He may be well known in the locality. He may be a saddler or a watch-maker whom everybody knows, and it would be reasonable if he could start up again in the same area.
The circumstances put by my hon. Friend were clearly irrelevant. You have to draw the line, and it is because it is difficult to know exactly where the line has to be drawn that we have used general words in the Clause. The Committee can trust the arbitrator to apply them fairly and do their best to carry out what is admittedly a difficult task and, from their point of view, a task which they do not particularly welcome. My

hon. Friend's second question was about a lease which had 15 years to run in 1939 and only five years in 1949. That is looked after all right. You have the interest as it exists at the date of the notice to treat, and you assume that the interest could have been on the market, as it were, in 1939. I think that that covers all the points.

Wing-Commander James: What about my widow?

The Attorney-General: I thought somehow that I had mislaid a widow. The interests of my hon. and gallant Friend's widow would be purchased. She has a life interest. Both the son and the widow have interests which the acquiring authority would purchase. The widow, being disturbed in her occupation, would have a right to put in a claim for the 30 per cent.

Mr. Piekthorn: Within the meaning of the word "circumstances" in this connection, is the cost of alternative accommodation obviously a leading category?

The Attorney-General: I would not agree to "leading," but it is obviously a category.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in line 3, after "land," insert "is the owner of land."
There are further Amendments in my name which are consequential. This Amendment raises the main issue of discrimination against the owner as compared with the owner-occupier, which discrimination, we say, is grossly disadvantageous to the owner. That issue has been dealt with to a substantial extent to-day and yesterday; therefore, in deference to the wishes of the Chair and the convenience of the Committee I shall cut my remarks as short as possible. The Amendment moved yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) covered a much wider field because it involved the question whether a supplement should be general and, if so, to what extent and to what amount. It also covered the question of site value, which is not involved. in this Clause. Here we have a simple issue. The Clause provides that a supplement of 30 per cent. shall be given to the


owner-occupier. We are asking that the investor, the owner who is not in occupation, should not be excluded from that supplement.
1.0 p.m.
I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday, and to what he has said on previous occasions, but I have not yet heard anything from him, or from anyone else, to change my view that the investor in land is being dealt with in a most invidious manner. I regard these provisions as an attack upon thrift and as implying a stigma against the ownership of property. Property owners have already had a very thin time with the operation of the Rent Acts, and with vastly increasing costs of repairs, and so on, and their lot has not been a very happy one. It is all very well to say that investors must take their risk. There are many risks to which investors have their eyes open when they make their investments. If they suffer when those risks mature, certainly they have no complaint. It might be said that one risk which they should have in contemplation is the risk of the action of a predatory Government. It well may be that they should have contemplated, when they made their investments, that sooner or later we might have a predatory Government in this country. But certainly I do not think we should expect them to have imagined that this Government, containing a substantial proportion of Conservative Members, would take predatory action against their interests.
I am not complaining at all that the owner-occupier is getting too much, but I am certainly complaining that the owner who is not an occupier is going to get too little. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister tried to explain the discrimination on the ground that the owner-occupier had a dual existence and that his position as an owner was quite distinct from his position as an occupier; that is not made clear in the Bill. In my contention, anyone reading the Bill would not come to that conclusion at all. After all, it is what is in the Bill that matters, and I do feel—

The Deputy-Chairman: What matters now is what is in the Clause only, and not what is in other parts of the Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: Perhaps I might substitute "this Clause" for "the Bill." What is in the Clause will matter when the Bill becomes an Act and if the Minister's intentions are not clearly expressed in the words of the Clause when they are enacted, it may be that a serious mess will result. I do not think that the Minister's distinction between the position of an owner-occupier as an owner, and as an occupier, is really very impressive. What is the position of an occupier who does not qualify as an owner, that is to say someone who has an interest something less than a lease with three years to run? The Attorney-General tried to explain away the position by saying that people who could not qualify as owners but who none the less were occupiers, were taken care of by the provisions of Clause 27. I am not going to trespass—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter concerning the owner-occupier, and we have already had several discussions upon it. We certainly cannot spare time to-day further to discuss the position of owner-occupiers. We are discussing the position of occupiers who are not owners.

Sir J. Mellor: I was going to say that I did not think that what the Attorney-General said in any way impinges upon my argument, for the simple reason that I can put in one sentence—Clause 27 is permissive. It does not touch the question from the point of view of a resident, except in so far as he may get some removal expenses. Therefore, I do not think that anything the Attorney-General said in any way affects my argument on this point. My argument is that it is really not reasonable to say that we can distinguish giving this 30 per cent, in respect of occupation as distinct from ownership; occupation is not adequately dealt with elsewhere, when the occupier does not qualify as an owner.

Mr. Molson: Surely the point is that in the case of these interests, the occupier is dispossessed in his occupation, while in the case of those who are dealt with under Clause 27, they are not dispossessed of their occupation. That occupation is terminated by notice.

Sir J. Mellor: I thought I had made my point clearly. If I followed my hon. Friend further, I am sure that I should


come into conflict with the Chair. Consider the position of a man who has a house worth £5,000 on the 1939 basis. He can get as much as a supplement of £1,500 if he is living in the house, whereas if he is not living in it he can get only the £5,000. That is a fairly substantial supplement in respect of his occupation, if he has to leave his house. It seems fairly substantial. Consider the person who is an occupier as a tenant, with four years of his lease to run, and who is paying a rack rent. Surely the arbitrator, regarding the matter from a legal point of view, would say that the value of his interest was negligible.

The Deputy-Chairman: The argument is getting rather too wide. I am beginning to wonder whether the Amendments of the hon. Member are within the scope of the Clause. Therefore it would be wise for the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: I am sorry, but I am doing my best to keep to the point of the discrimination between an owner who is not an occupier and an owner who is, I was only trying to draw the distinction between the fairly substantial compensation which a man living in a house worth £5,000 gets and that which an occupier would get with a lease of four years to run at a rack rent. In that case the value of his interest as assessed by the arbitrator would probably be negligible, but surely we cannot say—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already drawn the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that it is being increasingly borne in upon my mind that perhaps the Amendment should not have been called at all, and I must say that if he continues to go further in his present direction, I shall undoubtedly come to that conclusion.

Sir J. Mellor: Then I must be particularly careful, and I apologise, Mr. Williams. I come to quite a different point. The other line taken by the Minister in resisting the proposal that owners should be in the same position as owner-occupiers, was that an owner who was an investor had parted with his interest in the land in exchange for a fixed annual money payment, and therefore he had become a complete rentier and had abandoned his interest in the land, apart from the technicality of the freehold. The Minister said he had to be regarded as

somebody who had merely a fixed money claim. Of course, in the case of a very long lease of, say, 999 years, that argument would be tenable, but in the sort of leases with which we are dealing today, for instance, of seven, 14 or 21 years, it is quite untenable. What people did when they bought land and houses was to endeavour to invest their money in something which was, as far as possible, of value, independently of the fluctuations in the purchasing power of the currency. During the tenancy it is true, of course, that they have merely a fixed money claim, but they can—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already warned the hon. Member once and I shall not do it again. This is not a matter of tenancy. If he does not keep to the owner-occupier I shall have to rule that the Amendment obviously goes too wide.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On that point, Mr. Williams, are we not entitled to discuss the claims of the owner of the land to the 30 per cent.?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is what I have said.

Sir J. Mellor: I am coming to the conclusion that I am unable to develop my argument on the two main lines which I thought most relevant to this issue. I will say this, that whatever my right hon. Friend may think—and I know that what he says he thinks—the effect of the discrimination against the investing owner of property will have grave results. It has been a traditional investment in this country, always regarded as sound, to put money into bricks and mortar. I suggest that it has not only been satisfactory from the point of view of the investor—although it is becoming far less satisfactory to-day—but that it has been of direct value to the State. Surely, at the present time above all, we ought to encourage that form of investment. The Government want the co-operation of private enterprise in building houses, but it does seem to me that they are going a very strange way about obtaining it. I do hope that they will give, a little more thought to this matter and will consider whether, in the interests of their housing programme alone, they would not be well advised to give a little more thought to fair treatment for the investor in property.

1.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I should warn the Committee that we cannot use this Amendment to repeat the whole of yesterday's Debate. It would not be fair to the Committee.

Mr. Molson: I shall try to keep within your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but there were some points raised by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) in the early part of his speech to which you did not take exception, and to which I should like to give an answer. If I thought that the effect of this Measure was in any way to discriminate unfairly against property held by an owner-investor, or that it really was the case that this Bill would be regarded in any way as an attack upon property, or if I thought the Government could rightly be described as predatory, I should not be supporting the Clauses in the way I am doing. I am the more anxious to make my position and that of some of my hon. Friends on this matter quite clear, as the speech made by my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) was one with which I found myself in complete disagreement.
The view which I take, and which is obviously the view taken by the Government, is that property as such is fairly adequately compensated by the payment of 1939 prices. That is the matter which was discussed yesterday, and I should not be in Order in repeating the arguments used either on one side or the other. But to-day my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth is suggesting that it is not reasonable to have what I might call compensation in two decks. Property as such is, under this Bill, being compensated on the basis of whether it is occupied by the owner or not, but it seems to me entirely reasonable and proper to say, as the Minister said yesterday, that having compensated a man for his property, you are also justified in giving additional compensation when you deprive him of the roof over his head.

Sir J. Mellor: I was not disputing that at all. What I was quarrelling with was the Minister's explanation as to why 30 per cent. should go to owner-occupiers and not to owners.

Mr. Molson: That is what I thought I was saying. I can hardly be optimistic enough to suppose that when I repeat the

Minister's arguments which he used yesterday I shall be more successful than he was in carrying conviction to my hon. Friend's mind.

The Deputy-Chairman: This is repeating the arguments of yesterday. It is so obvious that this is becoming a repetition of yesterday's Debate that I must withdraw the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. There are one or two other points which were not raised yesterday, and we had not an opportunity of raising them then. Would it not be possible, I ask with great respect, Mr. Williams, for you to allow the discussion to proceed and to watch very closely for any point that is out of Order, because there are one or two other points which some hon. Members might wish to raise?

The Deputy-Chairman: There may be one or two points which hon. Members wish to raise. So far as I have been able to do so, I have been trying to watch the discussion very carefully. It is a very complicated matter, and I suggest that there will be an occasion on the Motion "That the Clause be added to the Bill," when any point that has been left out can be raised.

Mr. Turton: Surely this is an extraordinary position. An Amendment has been moved, with your approval, Mr. Williams. There are Members who, no doubt, wish to vote on this question. It may be we shall be trespassing against the rules of Order by repeating on this Amendment the arguments which we used yesterday, but surely the proper procedure is for the Amendment to be put and not withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the Chairman has always the chance of withdrawing an Amendment if, as the discussion proceeds, he considers that it should not have been called.

Sir J. Mellor: If I have been at fault in this, I humbly apologise. I must say in my own defence that yesterday, anticipating for good reasons that this Amendment would be called to-day, I purposely refrained from making a speech to the Committee and taking up time then. While I apologise I think that might be taken into consideration.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of Order. It has struck me from the beginning that this discussion is whipping a dead horse which I thought was buried yesterday. If the Committee has decided a principle yesterday I think the Chair is quite right in saying it should not be asked to reconsider that principle to-day. It would make this Committee ridiculous if, for example, it reversed its decision of yesterday on this Amendment. Therefore I respectfully suggest—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is becoming a Debate of length on my decision.

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. I cannot allow a Debate on a decision of the Chair to go on indefinitely on points of Order.

Sir J. Mellor: On the point raised by—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think this discussion is being taken into a Debate which is coming much too near the question of whether the Chairman is right or wrong. We cannot discuss that. I must rule that we end the discussion on this Amendment, which I withdraw from the Committee, and I shall now call the next Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in line 7, after "owner-occupier," insert:
and acquired that interest prior to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
The effect of this Amendment is to limit the number of persons who may be regarded as owner-occupiers to persons who had acquired that property before 31st March, 1939, and will then qualify for the additional 30 per cent. grant. I do not think this Amendment needs a great deal of advocacy. The fact is that the new definition of owner-occupier has opened the door very widely indeed, some might think far too widely, and at least one does not want people who have acquired their property during the war to get the benefit of the additional 30 per cent. Therefore this Amendment has been moved to limit that grant to people who were in occupation of their premises before 31st March, 1939.

Mr. Turton: I want to say a word in support of this Amendment. In view of the curious discrimination of the Govern-

ment as regards the owner-occupier it would be wise to take precautions against persons who acquire their interest after the passing of this Bill, otherwise a number of owner-investors will enter into occupation of their property in order that they may get the extra 30 per cent. I think that would be undesirable, and it would make for better standards of conduct on the part of all local authorities, if there was some such provision in the Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: This Amendment is, at first sight, an attractive one, but I hope my hon Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) will forgive me if I say that, on further examination it seems to be based upon a misconception. As I understand it the Government have selected the owner-occupier for special treatment upon the ground that in his case, unless he is given a special measure of compensation, he will be deprived not only of his property but also of his home. I understood that that point of view was accepted by my hon. Friends on the other side of the Committee. If that be so, the effect of this Amendment would be that a person who had begun to occupy premises since March, 1939, making his home in those premises, would in fact occupy his home without receiving the additional compensation which I understood all my hon. Friends on the other side of the Committee were agreed that he ought to receive. That being so, I am sure on further reflection the hon. Member for Peckham, who has such a wide acquaintance with these topics, and who, if I may say so, treats them in so fair-minded a fashion, will appreciate that there is really a fallacy in the root of this Amendment. In the circumstances I hope that the Committee will not accept it.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think that on reflection my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment will agree he should not press it, for the very reason expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson). There is no justification in my mind for not treating people who have bought houses since the outbreak of war in order to make their homes in them any less generously than people who bought before the war. Many of those persons who have become owner-occupiers since the outbreak of war have, if anything, a stronger claim to public recognition in this respect, in my judgment. They may have bought


their homes as a result of evacuation, as a result of their original homes being destroyed, or they may have been forced under the stress of war to move from one part of the country to another, and have then become owner-occupiers of premises. I am sure it would not be the wish of the Committee that people who have been forced to move in that way should be treated less generously than others. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) I would indicate briefly that the point he has made is the subject of another Amendment. When we come to discuss that Amendment I may have something to say upon it.

Mr. Silkin: In view of what has been said, and on reflecting, as I have been invited to do, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I beg to move, in line 7, after "owner-occupier," insert:
or the owner of such an interest in land not exceeding in value five thousand pounds.
I am very grateful that this Amendment has been called so that I may say one or two words upon it. I frankly admit that its object is to extend the supplementation allowed to the owner-occupier to a particular class of owner-investors. On all sides of the Committee it is appreciated, I think, that there is a large body of persons who have worked through the whole of their working lives and towards the end have invested their savings in a house. On the rent of that house they are probably living in another house. They are persons who are deserving of all the consideration of Parliament, in that this method is really a form of insurance, so that they have something to live upon in their old age. I know of many cases, as I feel sure every Member of this Committee does, of persons who have invested their savings in an adjoining house or in a house further down the road. I should very much like the Committee to extend this supplementation of compensation to such persons.
1.30 p.m.
It has been extremely difficult to draft an Amendment which deals with the class of persons in whom I am interested. I

wondered whether it would be advisable to limit the figure to £2,000 as opposed to £5,000, because that more accurately covered the class of persons I would like to bring under this supplementation scheme. But I found, particularly in the areas which I know, that there are persons who have been in business, who have retired, and who have left their premises to be occupied by other people who may be carrying on business in premises in which they have no interest at all. I selected the figure of £5,000 in order to include such persons. I am not wedded to the figure. There are many anomalies in this Bill. We have heard from the Attorney-General that a great many big businesses and corporations which might be impersonal are covered by this supplementation provision, and yet a person who is an investor, just as the corporations are investors, is excluded, because he does not come into the category which has been laid down. I strongly urge the Committee to consider that class of persons whose life's savings have gone into a house, from which they draw a revenue, upon which they live. We have decided—and, quite frankly, it is a principle to which I am not antagonistic—that the owner-occupier should be entitled to special compensation; but here is another cass of persons to whom some consideration should be given, because it is their life savings which they have invested in property, upon which they have to live.

Mr. Woodburn: I am sure that everyone sympathises with the object behind the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment, that there should be no injustice done to people who are in very poor circumstances or who are likely to find themselves living in difficult economic conditions. But I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman, on reflection, will agree that he has introduced into this Debate a thing which most people have tried to avoid—the principle of separating classes of people according to their poverty or wealth, and dealing with them on that basis. The law separates those who are entitled to compensation into two distinct classes. There is the owner-occupier, whatever his wealth, and there is the investor. That has been done on the principle, as I understand, that we cannot distinguish between one investor and another by allowing any particular investor to contract out of the accidents and the difficulties arising from war. The


man whose house was requisitioned at the beginning of the war, and who got compensation at the 1939 level, and who put that into War Loan, has not had his compensation increased in the slightest. He has still got his £5,000—to use the figure which was used earlier as an illustration—and not £5,000 plus £1,500. There is no moral justification for saying that the man who has put his money into property should be absolved from the depreciation that has taken place in money. However much we may agree with the principle of the Amendment, it does not accomplish what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants. A man may have hundreds of interests not exceeding £5,000 each; and a millionaire may get all his property exempted under this proposal, provided that each of the properties is under £5,000 in value.

Lieut.-Colonel Guest: That is a weakness of the drafting. I would not like to see a man who owns a lot of houses, and whose business it is to let them out in large numbers, get the supplementation.

Mr. Woodburn: I realise the sincerity of my hon. and gallant Friend, but he will understand that, in passing a law of this kind, we have to see that our hearts do not carry us away to the extent of allowing all the stable doors to be opened and all the horses to run out. On principle and on the technicality I do not think the Committee should accept an Amendment of this kind.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I would like to speak in support of the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). While I am in sympathy with the purposes of the Amendment I am afraid it opens the door to the principle which was in the Bill as originally drafted, and which we referred back to the Government. If there is something inequitable about the treatment being accorded to the owner-investor under the Bill as it now stands, it is not made any more equitable by extending the supplementation, or not, according to whether the property is under £5,000 or over £5,000. It is either right or wrong to recognise the owner-occupier. I support what the hon. Member for East Stirling has said in that respect, although perhaps for a slightly different reason.

Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. and gallant Member for the Drake division (Lieut.-

Colonel Guest) has admitted that there was an error in drafting, inasmuch as the Amendment would enable large sums to be given to investors whom it was not intended to cover. I listened carefully to what the hon. and gallant Member had to say, and he did not seem sure whether the amount should be £2,000 or £5,000. As there are so many uncertainties I suggest that he might think it well to withdraw the Amendment and to bring it up at another time. So much is uncertain that it would not be right to pass an opinion on the matter at all.

Sir Robert Tasker: May I refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn)? Many seem to have an idea which they introduce in nearly every Debate upon this Bill that there is no difference between property ownership and the ownership of stocks and shares. We ought not to have that idea in our minds. The two are not comparable. Transactions in property and transactions in shares are entirely different. I deprecate hon. Members, for the purpose of debate, trying to compare stocks and shares held by one man with property held by another.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I respect the motives which led my hon. and gallant Friend to put down this Amendment, but, for reasons which I think have appeared in speeches from all quarters of the Committee, I am bound to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that he should withdraw it, or, in any event, to suggest to the Committee that the Amendment is one which they cannot accept. The general principle of making a distinction between owner-occupiers and owners who are not occupiers was decided after debate yesterday, and it would be quite improper, and, indeed, not in Order, for me to reopen that question.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) that, that question having been decided, we should not be acting in a way that would improve the Bill if we brought in a sort of means test and added certain non-occupying owners to the owner-occupiers who may benefit under this Clause. I would put only two other points to my hon. and gallant Friend. The first is that his Amendment is defective, not


merely for the possible reason suggested by the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn)—I am not sure that it is defective in that way, although it may be—but, certainly, because there is no limitation whatever on the wealth of the gentleman who might benefit under this Amendment, in forms of property other than land. He might be a millionaire by reason of his holdings of War Loan, and he would still be entitled to benefit under this Amendment as drawn. If it were intended to introduce any sort of wealth qualification, it would have to be on entirely different principles from those set out in the Amendment.
There is another point—and I think this may appeal a little to my hon. and gallant Friend on the merits. One of the examples, if I understood him correctly, that he gave was that of a person who had put his life savings into property subject to a really long lease. If that was so, the main element in the value of that person's property that we are considering is the value of the rent under that lease, and there is no particular reason for thinking that that was very different in 1939 from what it is to-day. If it was a long lease, and his property was, in effect, little more than a money claim on a long-term investment, there is no reason to think there has been much change in the value of that property, or that any substantial injury would be done by the payment of the 1939 price and no more. I do not think that, having regard to the defects of the Amendment that I have pointed out and that have been pointed out by other Members, my hon. and gallant Friend will wish to press it. Should he agree with what I have said, I suggest that he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in line 48, leave out from the second "the" to end of paragraph, and insert:
date of the first publication of the intention to make an application for an order under Section one of this Act or the making of the compulsory purchase order as respects land not included in an order under the said Section one or the date of other authorisation of the purchase, as the case may be.
This Amendment is regarded as of considerable importance. I think it will not come as a surprise to the Committee to learn that there are unscrupulous owners who may take advantage of this Bill to

increase their eligibility for compensation. The Amendment deals with the qualification for obtaining the additional 30 per cent. One of the qualifications is that the person should be in occupation of the building or property at the time of the service of the notice to treat. The important words are "at the time of the service of the notice to treat." The Amendment would qualify him if he was an owner-occupier at the date of the first publication of the intention to make an Order. Under the provisions of this Bill, as it has been amended in Committee and on the Report stage, an owner will have very ample notice of the intention of the local authority to acquire his property. For instance, the local authority must advertise their intention of making an Order not less than two months before they do so.
1.45 p.m.
Then, there are two other advertisements which they have to make, and there is the possibility of two local inquiries, and I assume that it may well be, in extreme cases, that an owner of property will have 12 months' notice before the notice to treat has been served. The desire of the authorities is that the owner shall not use that period in order to put himself in a favourable position for obtaining compensation, to the prejudice of the local authority, and the Amendment is designed to provide that the operative date should be the date of the first intimation of the local authority's intention to acquire the. property. If a person is an owner-occupier by that date, he should qualify; if he is not, by that date, he should be regarded merely as an owner.
The Amendment is not without precedent. Indeed, there is one precedent in this very Bill. In the Fifth Schedule, there is a provision, which is not exactly on all fours, but which does provide for the possibility of a person acting in such a way as to prejudice the local authority in giving him more compensation. In the First Schedule to the Housing Act of 1936, paragraph 2 (b), there are the words:
The arbitrator shall not take into account any building erected or any improvement or alteration made, or any interest in land created after the date on which notice of the order having been made is published.
That is the date under the Housing Act, which may be a long time before the


notice to treat, and, therefore, I submit that what is being asked has been well recognised in law, and that the provision is made very frequently in private Acts on similar lines. I hope that the Minister will, therefore, see his way to accept it.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I think it would be convenient if I spoke at once on this Amendment, because I recognise its importance, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the weight of the considerations that are in my mind and approve of the course which I suggest. We must face the problem, set by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that it is necessary that there should be some protection that the owner-occupier is a bona-fide occupier. That is the problem which the hon. Member set to the Committee, and it is one that the Committee should meet. As drafted, the test is the date of the notice to treat. My hon. Friend's suggestion is that we should substitute for that, the earliest date on which there is means of knowing of the impending purchase of the property. I am putting this generally, and, I hope, correctly. I fully approve of the intention behind the Amendment, to prevent owners taking up occupation of property which they own merely for the purpose of qualifying for the supplementary payment.
The difficulty which I see in the proposal is that it might work injustices in many cases. The first advertisement of an intention to apply for a Clause I order may be made, as regards some areas, very soon after the end of the war and long before the people who have moved away because of war circumstances have settled down to a normal life. The actual purchase may not take place for many years, during which there might well be all sorts of bona-fide changes in ownership and occupation. The same difficulty arises—and I ask my hon. Friend to note this—on the second part of the Amendment, dealing with the period of three years which may elapse between the date on which the compulsory purchase order is made and the date the notice to treat is served.
I am suggesting to my hon. Friend that it is impossible to make the rigid exclusion which he proposes. I am not going to put forward a purely destructive criticism. I suggest that the true test—it sounds

formidable, but it is the true test—is whether the buying of the property is made, bona-fide, for occupation or simply for this purpose. Although my right hon. and learned Friend and I would be the last to throw onerous burdens on the county court judges, we recognise that they could deal with it. Intention is just as much a matter of fact as the state of one's digestion, and the county court judges would be able to solve that problem. My hon. Friend's reference really supports my suggestion, because the idea in paragraph 8 of the Fifth Schedule—and the idea, as my hon. Friend said, is found in very many recent Acts conferring powers of compulsory purchase—is the precedent which I favour, namely, that which directs the arbitrator not to take into account any interest, or land, or buildings and the like, in his opinion, it was not reasonably necessary and was created or carried out with a view to obtaining compensation, or increased compensation. That is the common form of protection, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should work on that basis. I hope he will not press his present proposal, on the understanding that the Minister will formulate a proposal on the lines which I have suggested and deal with it in another place.

Mr. Silkin: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward): In reference to the Amendment standing next in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser), it seems that it is intimately connected with the further Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, and I think it would be convenient to the Committee to discuss them together.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser (Lons-dale): I beg to move, in line 56, leave out "or."
This Amendment is to be considered with the following Amendment:
In line 67, at end, insert:
or
(e) If, in the case of any person serving in any of His Majesty's Forces, he can show that he was in occupation of the building or property at the time of his enlistment and that the title under which the building


or property is held is such that he has the right to enter into occupation thereof on the termination of his service with His Majesty's Forces.
The Committee decided that only the owner-occupier, and not the owner-investor, should benefit by this supplementation and still defines the owner-occupier in various ways. I want to be clear that those who are covered in the Bill for the purpose of supplementation include any man who gave up his occupation of the house or premises because he went to join the Armed Forces of the Crown. I want to be quite clear that there can be no case in which the call to arms invalidated a man's claim to that supplementation. I do not want to elaborate the argument for that view, because I am sure that it commends itself to the Committee, but I ask if there is any possible trap in the five years period. Supposing a man is away in Burma for another three or four years, what then? Is there any possible trap, if he was not in occupation at the time when notice to treat was served? There are other possible traps, and I ask for an assurance that, in no circumstances, will the man who went into the Armed Forces miss the supplementation which Parliament wishes to give him.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I wish to support the Amendment. I think that, when we are arguing the very complicated provisions of this Bill, some of the difficulties are overlooked. If we take the case of a Serviceman who has joined up and been sent abroad, we find that, in many cases, he has had to let his house and has let it only for the duration of hostilities. Although he intends to return to his house, he has, in fact, been obliged to let it for a period of three, five or seven years, as the' case may be. But he had every intention of coming back to that house and making it his home again. You cannot, in the difficult conditions prevailing in this war, always get possession of your house, which may be in a blitzed area. I contend that there is substance behind this Amendment. I hope the Minister will see whether, in the exceptional circumstances indicated—and this is not a frivolous Amendment, but a very serious one—ex-Servicemen who have been called up and sent out of the country will have special consideration, to make sure that

no man who has been drafted away from this country, and whose intention, quite honestly, is to go back and make that house his home, will be deprived of the opportunity of doing so, or prevented from receiving the benefits of the owner-occupier provision.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment did so as a precaution because he wanted to make quite certain that the case of the soldier had been properly borne in mind. I am going to ask him not to press the Amendment, but to withdraw it, and to give him the assurance which I think is the assurance that he desires. The soldier whose position is amply secured under the Clause as it stands, without the Amendment, is a soldier who has both the right and the intention to enter into occupation within five years of the notice to treat. If, notwithstanding that intention, he cannot do so because he has gone into His Majesty's Service and is serving in Burma or elsewhere abroad, he will still be protected under the words in the Clause as it stands,
subject to its being possible for him so to do.
I use this careful language because it is not sufficient—and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend did not intend it to be—that he merely left the premises when he became a soldier. But if he has both the right and the intention, so far as it may be possible, to enter into occupation within five years of the notice to treat, he is fully covered, I am advised, by the Clause as it stands, and the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend is unnecessary, and because it is unnecessary it is undesirable. In these circumstances I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that on that assurance he should ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir I. Fraser: If it is not possible because he is retained in the Armed Forces, have I the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he has only to show that he is so detained and his five years will be extended to six or seven years and so on?

Mr. Strauss: Let me read the words of the Clause as it stands:
it was at that time his intention, subject to its being possible for him so to do, to enter into occupation.'


If he has that intention to enter into occupation as soon as he is released from Burma, and the only reason he does not enter is because he is detained in His Majesty's Forces—if he intends, if it is possible for him to do so, if, that is to say, he is released from His Majesty's Forces in time, to enter into possession within the five years, he is protected under the Clause. He is not excluded from the right to claim supplementation merely because his service in the Army or any other of His Majesty's Forces renders it impossible for him to enter into occupation at the end of five years.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The only point I would like to put to my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has so earnestly tried to meet the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend who proposed the Amendment, is, Why limit it to five years? In the majority of cases where you seek to find a tenant for a house insistence is made upon having a seven years' lease. A soldier might genuinely wish to return to his home; he might be forced to let his house on a seven years' lease and yet would have every intention of returning. Is it not possible, even at this late hour, to see if the words cannot be altered from five to seven years?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot do that. The five years is part of the Clause. It may well be that the lease is one of seven years. The relevant date is the date of the notice to treat, and I think that the lease my hon. and gallant Friend, who seconded the Amendment, has in mind is probably a lease already made a year or two ago. Therefore, although it may have been a lease for seven years, the right to possession may well be, and almost certainly will be, within five years of the notice to treat. While I cannot change the five years, I think that the point that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind is, in fact, met.

Sir I. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman did not deal with the question where the soldier was already called up when notice to treat was served but happened to be in occupation at the time of notice.

Mr. Strauss: All that he has to have in order to give him the right of the benefit of the Clause we are considering is the right and intention to enter into occupation within five years of the notice to treat if he is able to do so.

Sir I. Fraser: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I do not intend to move the subsequent Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in line 75, leave out paragraph (c).
Would it be in Order if I discussed the next following Amendment in my name—in line 77, at the end, insert:
other than in the capacity of caretaker or a similar character,
as I think it would be convenient?

The Temporary Chairman: It might meet the convenience of the Committee if they were taken together.

Mr. Silkin: The purpose of the Amendment to omit paragraph (c) is that the paragraph strikes me as being vague and it goes much too far. It must be read with reference to paragraph (b), which provides that
references to occupation of a building or property include references to occupation of a part thereof.
I would like the Committee to look at the case of blocks of flats and blocks of offices. Let us examine the case of a caretaker. He is in occupation of a part of the premises. He is in employment as a caretaker and he is there for the purpose of that employment. Therefore, as long as a caretaker occupies one room in a block of flats, even if the rest of the premises are let off, he will, under paragraphs (b) and (c), become an owner-occupier in the occupation of one room. References to occupation of buildings or property include references to occupation of property. Take the case of an owner of an office building using one or more rooms in that block for the purposes of collecting rents and running an estate office. That would be deemed, as I read this provision, in occupation and would be occupation for purposes of employment, and, therefore, such a person would be regarded as an owner-occupier. There is no doubt that that was not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend in putting down this Clause. I would like an assurance that something will be done to restrict the scope of this Clause to what was intended and what was understood by every Member of this Committee.


There is one other point. No reference is made to the time when the occupation of a person in employment takes place. As long, in fact, as the premises are occupied by a person in employment for the purpose of rent employment at the date of notice to treat, that would be regarded as occupation.

Whereupon, The YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went: and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1944.
2. India (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944.
3. Housing (Scotland) Act, 1944.
4. Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) Act, 1944.
5. House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944.
6. Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit) Act, 1944.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (Re-Committed) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Supplement to compensation in case of owner-occupiers.)

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

2.20 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I hope it is not necessary for me to repeat the substance of the point I was presenting to the Committee. I was on my last point, which relates to the time when this will operate. Will it be possible for a person, even after the notice to treat, to create conditions which will make him an owner-occupier? Nothing is said in this paragraph about the period, and I fear it may be that when an owner becomes aware that it will

suit his purpose to utilise part of the premises for a person in his employment for the purposes of that employment, he may thereby be in the position to create such an interest as to give him the rights and privileges of the owner-occupier. I should be glad, therefore, if my right hon. Friend could look at this paragraph again and make quite certain that it applies only to those to whom it was Intended to apply, and that it will not be possible to create a prejudicial interest after the time when that interest should have been created.

Sir Herbert Williams: This is a difficult matter, made all the more difficult by a speech yesterday by a Noble Lord who described everybody who did not live in his own house as an absentee landlord. Where are we? If that is the basis, it means that everybody who does not live in his own house is an absentee landlord. This deals with the problem of the absentee landlord. I wish the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) were here, because he might elucidate the matter—I see he is just coming in—because on his basis this is of great importance. Every landlord must be an absentee landlord now because the man who is an owner-occupier is not called a landlord, so we abolish the word "landlord" from the English language on the basis that, unless you live in the house, you are an absentee. I always thought "absentee" related to peers who had property in Ireland and lived here. I do not know whether the Noble Lord is affected in that capacity.
Of course, you can drive a coach-and-four through this. All you have to do is to give notice to all your tenants, become the occupier yourself of all the houses, buy the furniture from your tenants, and then take them in as lodgers. It is perfectly legal, and you become the owner-occupier of every house you own. I think we have to bear these matters in mind, because now the Bill has been wrecked—it cannot operate as the result of yesterday's decision and there will be no town and country planning now in respect of places where you are paying inadequate compensation. The Bill is dead, but it is just as well that we should realise the kind of devices which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) wants to avoid, because a large number of his


constituents in Peckham are caretakers and he wants them properly safeguarded. This is important because, whenever you make a bad law, ingenious people always get busy and drive a coach-and-four through it, and they can do it through this Bill. You can go on plugging it up until, 12 months or so from now, a Minister—maybe a new one—will introduce an amending Bill, which we shall welcome very cordially.

The Attorney-General: I will answer first the third point of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). I will come to the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) in a moment. The material time is the time of the notice to treat. I think that is clear from paragraph
(d) on page 1460:
if—(i) the title under which the building or property is held at that time is such that he then has the right, etc.
I will look at it but I think it is quite clear. With regard to his third point, we are grateful to him for raising this question of caretakers. This provision, of course, was not intended to cover quite the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. It was not intended for instance, if a man had 20 houses that by putting a caretaker in each he would be able to say he was in occupation of them all. So if my hon. Friend will accept this assurance, we will look at that. It may require words which can be put in in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon does not like the Bill in its present form—

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman like it?

The Attorney-General: Certainly. I must say, in the case put by the hon. Member, that if a man does choose to buy a lot of houses and run them as a sort of combined boarding house, he will not necessarily get the 30 per cent. Some people think it is automatic, but it is not. If he says that he wishes to set up a similar arrangement for having lodgers, and that it will cost him more to set up in business on the same scale, I do not see why he should not be in the queue.

Mr. Silkin: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for his reply, but there is just one point. The Solicitor-General has given an undertaking to look

at paragraph (a) with regard to the time of service of notice to treat, and has given an assurance that some other date will be inserted. I take it that the undertaking will apply all the way through the Clause.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I did not hear it. I thought that what the hon. Gentleman was putting to me was, what was the date when a person had either to be in occupation, or could show the right to occupation. The answer is the date of the notice to treat, but if my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is looking at this, I will see that he looks at what I have said.

Mr. Silkin: That is the assurance that I would like. If that will be looked at as well, I shall ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I am one of those who, on yesterday's Ruling of the Chair, felt that it would not be in Order to discuss yesterday in any detail the distinction which this Clause draws between the owner-occupier and the owner-investor, and therefore I wanted to reserve my remarks for an occasion when one could discuss that point in isolation from other matters. Your predecessor in the Chair to-day, Major Milner, rather ruled to the effect that it was out of Order to repeat the arguments made yesterday, and it is only because I feel that I can produce one or two points which were not made yesterday, that I beg leave to offer them to the Committee now, when we are discussing whether this Clause should be added to the Bill.
2.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dud-deston (Sir O. Simmonds) speaking yesterday, claimed that there were high moral principles lying behind Tory-views on property, and the general titter which went round the Committee led one to feel that the Committee generally felt it quaint that anybody should hold such old-fashioned views about property. While I agree with my hon. Friend's views as to the moral basis of property, I would not seek to argue on behalf of property in this Committee solely on the basis of morality.


I would also wish to add expediency. And it is on grounds of expediency that I wish to argue against the Government's proposal to draw for the purposes of compensation a distinction between the owner-occupier and the owner-investor. To-day my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) said that if he felt that the Government, in drawing this distinction, were attacking property as such he would be against the proposal. It is one of our complaints against my hon. Friend and some of his friends, with regard to some of their pronouncements, that their contacts with the world of commerce and finance are not sufficiently practical to enable them to draw sound conclusions on these matters. If my hon. Friend had had practical contacts on this point he would have learned that this distinction, now being drawn by the Government, is, in fact, being regarded as an attack on property as such. It is quite proper for the Committee, if it wishes, to think that propery owning is wicked, but we want to know where we are and to consider how expedient that is in the country's interests.
I assure the Government—and I would like to tell my hon. Friend, who is not in his place—that my contacts in this matter are extremely practical. I live and move among those whose business and duty it is to advise people with small and large amounts of money how to invest their money. Among those people there is a unanimous feeling that this new distinction which the Government have drawn, this new principle which has been introduced into the law of compensation for property, is, to put it in a short phrase, "a crack at capital" as such. They think that it will have a bad effect on the interests of the country from two points of view. One has already been mentioned—I will not go into details—and it is that it will discourage people from investing in real estate in this country. The other is a much wider one which we have to consider, especially in regard to the difficult times we shall come to after the war. It is feared that we shall frighten people outside this country from sending their wealth and goods here, because they will be afraid that it may be taken away from them when it gets here.
I would reiterate to the Committee that those who have practical responsibility in the business of advising their clients how

to invest their money feel that through this distinction which has been drawn, a "crack at capital" has, in fact, been taken, in spite of all the words which the Minister of Town and Country Planning used in defending the distinction the other day. We can all see the distinction between the usufruct of property on one side and ownership without usufruct on the other. We say that it is a complete non, sequitur to apply that to the law of compensation for property which is expropriated, a non, sequitur being, as I understand it, defined as a conclusion which does not follow from the premise upon which it is alleged to be founded. The perfect example of a non sequitur is that of the man who found himself in the main street of Stony Stratford and exclaimed, "Well do they call this place Stony Stratford, for never have I been so bitten by fleas in all my life." This application of the undoubted distinction between the owner-occupier and the owner-investor has nothing to do with the law of compensation for expropriated property.
It is on these very practical grounds that I ask the Government to consider the fact that this new distinction they have drawn may have an effect both on the flow of capital into bricks and mortar, and the flow of capital from outside this country into this country in the years in which we shall need it very much, after the war. And I would add that the view of those I am quoting with regard to this particular distinction is strengthened by the slight lecture which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to property owners as such in his Second Reading speech last Thursday.

Mr. Mander: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) I want to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson), who has expressed the view that it is because my hon. Friend is so ignorant of finance that he advocates the views he does. The hon. Member for Hastings said that the best people from whom to seek advice in legislation dealing with land, business or finance are those who are intimately connected with it. I cannot accept that point of view. Their views are, of course, entitled to be treated with the utmost respect, but I cannot help feeling that an association of that kind sometimes narrows the mind,


and makes it impossible for such people to see the wood for the trees. I should have thought that the policy which the Government are asking the Committee to adopt was a reasonable and sensible compromise, having regard to the present situation and the change of attitude there is towards property. We take the view that human beings are more important than houses in matters of compensation and things of that kind. You cannot expect that property should receive 100 per cent. compensation for any loss that may have been suffered. After all, human beings cannot be compensated. They are giving, and have given, their lives, limbs, sight—everything. So I think it is stretching the point too far that to suggest that property is the one thing that must be sacrosanct and which, under all circumstances, must have its pound of flesh.

Mr. Woodburn: I regret that on two occasions to-day the whole question which we discussed yesterday has been raised again. I do not propose to follow that line. In the course of the Debate on this Clause certain things have been said which convey the impression that the Labour Party, in their attitude towards this Bill—and some members of the Government have been included in the condemnation—have acted in a vindictive spirit towards owners of property, as compared with owner-occupiers. I wish, on behalf of the Labour Party, entirely to repudiate that point of view. The House of Commons is a court of justice and while certain people are able put forward what appear to me to be ex parte pleas on behalf of certain interests we have not only to regard with sympathy any particular interest, but we must have regard to all the interests involved. While in some cases there may be people under this Clause who may suffer hardship, we have to consider the hardship of the people who live in the towns which want replanning, and who will have to pay the cost and have the greatest burdens to bear.
The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), who raised this question, stated that for generations people have been able to invest in property with the assurance that, whatever else happened to any other kind of investment, property would always be realisable at its value at the time it was purchased. I wish respectfully to

suggest that that is special pleading for one section of the community, and is no argument against a Clause which limits this special compensation to the owner-occupier. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) has spoken on somewhat the same lines, except that he based his argument on expediency and said that it would be a hardship to investors. Well, the only sacrifice investors are being asked to make is the common sacrifice that every other person, whose wealth is measured in terms of money, is being asked to make. If the value of our currency has depreciated by 30 per cent. that applies to everybody, even the person with the smallest savings in the bank. I cannot see any argument why an investor in property should be absolved and able to contract out of any depreciation which takes place in this property—

Captain Cobb: What the hon. Member does not appear to realise is this: that for this planning, which is desirable, and which will be expensive and will be a great burden on the taxpayer and ratepayer, we object to one class of the community being asked to contribute more than any other class.

Mr. Woodburn: On general lines, I agree. If the community wants to plan and nationalise any industry in this country, the cost should be spread over the community. The Labour Party's position is that fair compensation should be paid.

Captain Cobb: To all?

Mr. Woodburn: I maintain that under this Bill fair compensation is being given to the investor who has got back, pound for pound, the value of his property in 1939. I say definitely that only special pleading for a vested interest, as against all the common interests in the country, would justify this distinction. I regret that the whole matter, which was debated yesterday and decided conclusively, has been reopened to-day as if it could be revised by this Committee. I appeal to the Committee that we should not reopen the discussion but should agree that the concensus of opinion expressed by the vote yesterday represents the judgment of this great Parliament, and that we should leave the matter where it is.

Mr. Turton: Let us get back to what happened yesterday—

The Chairman: That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman must not do; we cannot have a repetition of yesterday's Debate.

Mr. Turton: With great respect, Major Milner, the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) devoted part of his peroration to that, and I suggest that it would be opportune for me, and in line with our late Speaker's Ruling about "cut and thrust" in debate, if I made a reference to those remarks. I have no desire to go into what happened yesterday, which, of course, is entirely out of Order on this Clause.

Mr. George Griffiths: But the hon. Member started by saying, "Let us get back to what happened yesterday.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member is fond of interrupting but I was about to say that yesterday we were dealing with one question, namely, whether we agreed with the 1939 ceiling or not. To-day we are dealing with another matter, namely, whether certain people are to have an added advantage over the rest of the community. I, personally, have no desire to be predatory on any member of the community, but I think it would be wrong if certain people were by chance selected to get a greater amount of compensation out of the community. If there is some special merit in these owner-occupiers I should be in favour of their having it. If it was calculated on some designed system of preference, if they were people who had in the years before the war conferred greater benefit on the community, such as was suggested by my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) yesterday, then no doubt they should get a higher reward.
2.45 p.m.
But the Attorney-General was very candid in reply to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) as to who these owner-occupiers might well be. He said it was perfectly true that, by devices, any owner-investor could divest himself of his tenancy and become an owner-occupier and qualify for the extra 30 per cent. When the Attorney-General replies I hope he will recall what he said to the hon. Member opposite.

The Attorney-General: I do not intend to reply, but I did not say what my

hon. Friend puts into my mouth. I said that in the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) the man might well be able to establish that he was carrying on a bona-fide boarding house business, which he was going to carry on elsewhere. I did not say that under this Clause owners would be able by devices to put themselves in the position of owner-occupiers.

Mr. Turton: If an owner adopts the procedure outlined earlier by the hon. Member for South Croydon he will qualify for the extra 30 per cent. Of course as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he would have to put himself in the position really of a boarding house keeper. Is it possible under the Clause for owners of property to become owners of vacant property and by that means qualify for the extra 30 per cent.? You will have in a town shops which are chain stores where the company that owns the businesses will get the extra 30 per cent, and you will have in the same town small shopkeepers who are tenants who will only get the 1939 price. I think that is wrong. In country districts you will have large farms where the owner is also the occupier and 130 per cent. will be paid. A neighbouring tenant farmer will get no increase on the 100 per cent. I think the Committee should not allow that discrimination to lye made in favour of the large company or the man who is an owner-occupier and against the man who is an owner investor or the tenant of the owner investor. Many Members who would otherwise have voted against the Government yesterday could not do so owing to the narrow nature of the Amendment. I hope the Government will realise that some of their supporters in recent Amendments are still concerned about the discrimination that has been made in this new Clause.

Sir Frank Sanderson: I support the Clause because I regard its provisions as a fair and reasonable solution of what is admittedly a very difficult problem. The Government adhere to the 1939 standard as a general basis and have recognised there is a case for certain exceptions to that principle. I wish to make only one point which has not been put in the form in which I desire to put it. The whole question of the valuation of either land or property can be divided


into two. There is property in parts of the country which has suffered severely from being blitzed and there are other parts of the country which have not suffered at all. I need not give illustrations, but I should have no difficulty in giving chapter and verse for properties which stood at x value in 1939 and, owing to the blitz, have suffered depreciation as high as 80 per cent., and have changed hands at those depreciated values. Already we have seen those values appreciate again. The Clause provides that the depreciated areas, where values have gone down, shall receive not less than the 1939 value, which will prove of incalculable value to these areas, whereas in the safe areas we have seen properties which have increased in value altogether beyond their intrinsic value, and the 1939 value, for no other reason than that there is a section of the public prepared to pay almost any price to secure premises in what is regarded as a safe area. For these reasons, on grounds of equity, in order to raise the value of depreciated properties which have suffered in consequence of the blitz, in order that they should get reasonable terms, which are the 1939 value plus the possibility of an increase up to 30 per cent., and in order to prevent the safe areas securing a price which could not in normal times be obtained, I support the Clause.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) referred to hardship. His suggestion seemed to be that it was not a question of justice or equity but of hardship that we were alleging in connection with the discrimination between the owner-occupier and the owner non-occupier. I want to make it clear that our opposition to this discrimination is not a question of hardship at all but purely a question of equity and justice, and whether it is right to discriminate between the two types of owner. I have no idea why the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has returned to that side, because he was loudly cheered when he joined his spiritual home on the benches below me.

Mr. Mander: rose—

The Chairman: That question is really quite irrelevant to the subject before us.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member said almost exactly what my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount

Hinchingbrooke) said yesterday, that we should discriminate between the different kinds of property, and personal uses of property, in dealing with the question of compensation in the future. I was delighted to notice that my hon. Friend the Member far The High Peak (Mr. Molson) disowned my hon. Friend, and will presumably in due course disown the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. I am concerned about this discrimination on one point which I regard as of great importance, that is, the question of the aid which private enterprise can give in housing, as it has given in the past, and the tremendous difficulty that we are going to have in housing people, particularly ex-Service people when they come home from the war. It has been a tradition, through having fair compensation among other things, with small people as well as large that it is a good thing to invest in house property. Bricks and mortar are a good investment and it has been encouraged by the State.

The Chairman: I am sorry but clearly the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks are irrelevant to the Clause.

Captain Duncan: The Clause discriminates between the owner who occupies and the owner who does not. I am only saying that by this discrimination I am sure you will do a great deal of damage to that form of private enterprise. I wish to say nothing against municipal housing—I am all in favour of it—but we must have private enterprise housing as well in order to meet the urgent need. It is a case of all hands to the pump. These compensation Clauses are temporary, as the Minister announced yesterday. According to him they will last at any rate for five years. In my opinion they will not last for five years. I think they will have to be revised before then, and the sooner the better.

3.0 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I rise to put a point to the Minister upon the agricultural situation. What I under stand the Minister intends in this Clause is that an owner of land should get 100 per cent. of the 1939 value, but an owner-occupier should get an extra 30 per cent. This 30 per cent., I understand, is the amount of compensation for the disturbance of the owner-occupier. If a man is a tenant, and the owner


gives him notice to leave that land, that tenant has the right to one year of his rent plus disturbance. As I understand it, the 30 per cent. is given to the owner-occupier to compensate him for the disturbance he has been put to and the expense of finding another home. That, to my mind, is the whole point. There is one question I should like to ask the Minister. This is a Town and Country Planning Bill and it gives power to purchase land for the re-development of areas of extensive war damage or, indeed, for the re-location of population and industries of such areas. I want to ask whether the Bill is to be limited to that, or whether it may be used, during the course of five years, for the acquisition of land in various parts of the country?

The Chairman: We are not discussing the Bill now. The speeches have been rather of a Second Reading nature, and we must confine ourselves to the subject matter of this Clause, the supplement to the owner-occupier. That is the only question.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I rise for one moment because I do not want this Clause to go by without expressing my very serious misgivings that, when put into operation, it will be found to create so many injustices that local authorities will not work it at all. The proof of the pudding will be the eating. If we look back on this Debate in 12 months' time I think a good deal of sense will be found behind that remark. The hon. Member far South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has already mentioned it, and I wish to underline it in a word or two before this Clause is passed and becomes the law of the land. Take one injustice which has never been mentioned at all. I was telephoned two nights ago by a person who said that his house was near an area which he thought would probably be acquired. He had lost a considerable amount of money and had been forced to let his house. We shall have the absurd position where a person, who has. lost a considerable amount of money and has had to let his house will not get the extra 30 per cent., whereas those who have been fortunate enough to live in their houses will be considered as owner-occupiers and will qualify for the 30 per cent. The only other instance I wish to mention is the case where people, other than Servicemen, have, because of

this war, had to go to different parts and have left their houses with the intention of returning and living in them afterwards. I think that if my right hon. Friend only brings in ex-Servicemen and leaves it at that, then a whole group of other people will suffer hardship. I have no wish to detain the Committee any longer, and with those words of warning I will say no more.

Major Sir George Davies: I only intervene for one moment because I feel that we have been presented in Committee with an inaccurate thesis and a wrong reading of the provisions of this Bill. I do not read it as a differentiation between two kinds of ownership. I hold the same views as my hon. Friends with regard to the ownership of property—that proper and equitable compensation should be paid to a person who is expropriated. But here, as I read it, there are two kinds of investor, the man who, having invested his money in a piece of property, also lives there, or carries on business there, and the man who invests in the same way but does not occupy the property. The same compensation in respect of ownership is paid in the two cases but in the one case there is what is called "disturbance" and for that he gets, as it were, a bonus on top of what is paid to him as compensation in his position as owner. Therefore, in my view there is no differentiation between the two types of owners except that, in one case, a bonus is paid for disturbance. That is fundamentally what I read into these provisions, and I think there is a perfectly sound argument for it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down I would like to point out that the difficulty, surely, is to put them into two water-tight compartments and say that one person is the owner and the other is the owner-occupier.

Mr. Piekthorn: Surely the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Sir G. Davies) is perfectly plain and was used by the Minister himself. The Minister told us that the owner-occupier represents two persons in one suit of clothes. He gets 100 per cent. as one person, and 30 per cent. more as the other person. If the 30 per cent. is not an attempt to give, in certain cases, more compensation than in others, then why is it not given in respect of that something


different when it is in different legal ownership? That seems to me to knock the bottom out of the case just put by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil to which the Minister has replied.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I rise with almost a feeling of diffidence to address myself again to a topic on which I have already wearied the Committee several times, but I propose, if the Committee agrees, to refrain from re-hashing the points that have occupied so much of our time already. I have been conscious to-day, while this matter was under discussion, of a sort of agitation on the calm waters of the Committee which reminds me of the sort of ground swell that is sometimes visible on our coasts after a storm. But, like all manifestations of nature, I hope it will subside and that we shall get on with our business on the basis of the decision to which the Committee, after a long Debate and a Division, came yesterday. That decision was that in compensating for the acquisition of land we should proceed upon the standard of prices prevailing in March, 1939.
The objection to this Clause by my hon. Friends that is really relevant and in Order at this moment—I presume they are in Order, otherwise the Chair would have stopped them—is founded on the argument that having decided that the 1939 prices are fair, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) illustrated, we should not give anything more to the owner-occupier. That must be the argument; there is no other argument. I have already, for reasons I shall not repeat, indicated why we ought to give more to the owner-occupier, who loses not only a piece of property but his whole base of operations for either a dwelling or earning a livelihood. It is in the public interest that the men who are the subject matter of this Clause should be reinstated or enabled to reinstate themselves as soon as possible. When people talk about "discriminating against," that is not really the position. It is a tendentious way of putting the matter. What we are really doing, if any discrimination is in existence at all, is in this Clause discriminating, if you like, in favour of a man who is both occupier and owner, not as an owner but as an occupier. I hope that the Committee on reflection will not resist the Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked me a long question to which the answer is in the negative. I must mildly protest—I must not protest too much, for the sufferance of a Minister is the badge of my tribe—against his statement that the persons who are in this Clause have been selected by chance. He said that they are a group of people selected by chance. There is no element of chance in it. They are defined in exact legal language and they have been selected for treatment, not by chance, but for the various reasons I have already adduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) summed up as against this Clause some conversations he has had with those with whom he does business. I am always ready to listen to expert advice and to give particular weight to the advice of persons in a particular calling which is the subject matter of our problems, but I do not think that Parliament can solve this problem by appealing to the authority of conversations carried on outside among certain groups of people. The case must be stated to Parliament first, and we cannot reject a Clause of this character on the ground that some people, talking among themselves, imagine that it will not have good results.
It is alleged that in some mysterious way this Clause will prejudice the erection of dwelling-houses by private enterprise after the war. I cannot see any connection between the two matters. How is the fact that we are to give the owner-occupier something extra in respect of his occupancy and the disturbance thereof going to make private enterprise build fewer houses? I cannot see it for a moment. So far as it affects the problem at all, it will encourage the ownership of houses and of property by persons who are going to live and carry on their business in them. I apologise for venturing on this matter again, and I hope the Committee will now let me have the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Supplement to compensation in case of improvements).

Where compensation assessed subject to the rule set out in Sub-section (1) of the Section of this Act (Assessment of compensation) is for the purchase of an interest in land which, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and before the time of service of the notice to treat, has been


improved in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a government department, by the erection thereon of a building or by improvements made to a building or to agricultural land comprised therein, the person entitled to the compensation shall be entitled to receive from the purchasing authority, as a supplement to that compensation, such sum, if any, by way of addition to the value, ascertained by reference to prices current at the said thirty-first day of March, of the purchased interest in the land so far as attributable to the improvements, as may be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including in particular the cost of the improvements, any provision which may have been made for the payment of any of the cost thereof out of public moneys, and any recovery of any of the cost thereof by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of, or of products of, work done on the improved land.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is intended to deal with the following problem. Taking the 1939 standard, as we have decided to do, it of course applies all right, subject to the criticisms, which do not arise here, in respect of property which has been in existence since 1939. The arguments which have been adduced in favour of the 1939 standard clearly do not apply to the same extent if the whole or part of the building has been erected subsequent to 1939, when costs were much higher, or substantially higher. We think that it is fair that if a house was worth £500 in 1939, £500 should be given for it now; but if a similar house has been built or a part has been added at a time when costs were higher, we feel that account ought to be taken of it. Particularly is that so when we come to agricultural land and improvements which may have been ordered by the Minister, such as the setting up of cowsheds, drainage, or something of that sort, at a time when costs were well above those of 1939. We, therefore, thought it right to make provisions whereby that can be taken into account.
The Clause does not attempt to make the cost the criterion, and it would be wrong to do so. The criterion must be the value at the time of the notice to treat, but regard must be had to the fact that the costs exceeded the normal level of costs in 1939. Then we have provided

that any subsidy paid out of public funds must be taken into account. In a good many cases there has been a 50 per cent. grant towards agricultural improvements. The arbitrator must also take into account the fact that increased returns may have been received in respect of the work and have to some extent offset the capital expenditure. I would like to say a word about the restrictive words in the Clause, because we are not absolutely happy about them. There is an Amendment down, and we must deal with them in detail on that Amendment. The words to which I refer are:
has been improved in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government department.
We want to exclude the case where the type of work or building or addition is of the kind which we were all asked not to do in wartime because labour and materials were required for other more urgent matters. My right hon. Friend agrees that these words will be difficult to interpret and are a little more restrictive than we intend. There may be work which it was a good thing to do at the time which might be excluded by these words. We shall, therefore, be glad of any help in improving them. We want to exclude the type of expenditure which ought not to have been carried out in wartime and which made no contribution to the public needs.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from "improved" to "by," in line 6.
The Attorney-General has just indicated the purpose of the restrictive words contained in the Clause, that is to say, that it will only be possible to get compensation for improvements effected under a Government licence or under Government direction. The object, as I understand it, is to exclude compensation being paid for the type of improvement which he says ought not to be effected in war-time. I do not think that in war-time things which are not in the public interest could be erected on farms or in connection with buildings without Government licence or direction and if they could I doubt whether they would come into the category of improvements.


The point I desire to raise on the restrictive words is with regard to the future and not with regard to the war years. If, in the course of putting the point forward, I should use an expression or an adjective of which the Attorney-General does not approve, I hope that he will pardon it on this occasion and deal with the point of substance.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke last Friday he said quite clearly that these words were intended to cover improvements effected after the end of the war with Germany, and up to the time of the notice to treat, whenever that might be. It might be three years after the five years which have to run from the appointed day. Throughout all that interval of time improvements will be paid for under this provision. That, I think, represents what the Chancellor said. The point I want to make is that the only improvements effected during that time which will be paid for are those done under Government licence and direction. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Or permission."] Yes, or permission.
I do not know what the future is going to hold. A lot of hon. Members opposite may desire the present controls in agriculture to continue, and it may be they will continue for longer than some hon. Members on this side think is likely. However that may be, how can we possibly justify paying for a pig-sty put up under Government control and refuse to pay for a better pig-sty which a man has erected by using his own employees and without bothering a Government Department? It is another illogical distinction, and the effect of it will be to penalise anyone who tries to improve his holding or his factory by the exercise of his own initiative. I ask that the Amendment should be accepted. I suggest that the type of work which the Attorney-General wants to see excluded will probably not be an improvement justifying any supplemental compensation at all. As the words stand, they seem to be a discrimination—I use again a word that has been used before during the discussions on the Bill—in favour of the farmer who has to be directed to do things and it does not give fair treatment to the others.

Major Studholme: I support the Amendment. I think it should be made perfectly clear that the com-

pensation covers improvements carried out by an owner in the interests of agriculture or of his tenants on his own initiative, because he happens to be a conscientious, good landlord or farmer. Good landlords and good farmers do not necessarily wait to carry out improvements on their property until they are instructed to do so by the local authority or war agricultural committee. When the war is over controls will be much relaxed, and there will be more opportunity for owners to carry out improvements of this kind. We want to encourage the good owner and the good farmer, and therefore I hope that the Minister will consider the Amendment sympathetically. If he cannot accept it as it stands, perhaps he will devise some words which will cover the intention.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I heartily endorse the speeches which have been made on this Amendment. I do not think for a moment that the Government realise how much their proposal may impede agricultural production. I know a case where an electric line passes near a farm, which is in need of power for its milking operations. At present, the line stops short, because of war-time Regulations. In two or three years, if that line cannot be put up by the individual initiative of the landowner, the result will be a great loss of milk production. So far as I can understand this provision as to four nr five years, I think a state of uncertainty will exist. There is no reason at all why this electric line should not be put up, but it may never be allowed, and therefore the production of milk may cease entirely.
The words proposed by the Government, limiting improvements to those done under the orders of the Government or a war agricultural committee, are altogether too drastic. I very much hope that the Government will look at the matter again and see whether they can allow for necessary improvements, recommended, if you like, by the war agricultural committee, but do not stop them altogether.

Mr. Turton: It seems to me that the words proposed by the Government are already fairly wide. They start off by a reference to the interests of the war effort and they go on to give as an alternative:
instructions, licence or permission of a Government Department.


Is it suggested that the instructions of Government Departments are sometimes not in the interests of the war effort? The words require revision. We might substitute, instead of "interests of the war effort" some such words as "interests of food production." I quite see the point made by the Attorney-General when he moved the new Clause that we do not want to help a man who makes for his own pleasure or amenity improvements that may not be in the interest of the community. The interest of the community in the land is the production of food, and I should like to see introduced some such words as I have suggested, which would help the man on a grade C farm and penalise a man who is on a first grade farm. The words proposed will convey that impression unless they are altered. The man who has to receive constant instructions from a war agricultural committee is a bad farmer. The good farmer who is going ahead with his farm does not receive those instructions because he does not require them. Therefore I hope that the Minister will alter the words.

The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) that the words actually on the Order Paper are a good deal wider than those which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) wanted. They are not confined to cases of direction or instruction. I should have thought that almost any agricultural improvement made during the war would come within the words "interests of the war effort." My hon. Friend has just taken up an ingenious point by suggesting that instructions by Government Departments might not be in the interests of the war effort and that is the implication of the words. Of course, that was very far from our thoughts when we put down this form of words. We wanted to find a general form of words to extend to the obvious and proper cases which are covered by the words:
under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of a Government Department.
As I said when I moved the Clause we want to have another look at them.
3.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) made the

point that there may well be a period within the next five years while these Clauses are operating, when it may not be necessary to get permission for everything one wants to do, and when the war will be over so that the war effort formula can no longer be relied upon. I think that is also a point which requires consideration. The trouble about the words "improved production" is that though it would work all right for agriculture and industry, you may only want to cover improvements to residential property which are perfectly proper in the interests of the community. My right hon. Friend is grateful to those who have raised these points and given us their criticisms of these words. I would not like to agree to their disappearing altogether, but we will undertake to see whether we can arrive at some more satisfactory formula which will exclude what we want to exclude and will include both during the present period and later appropriate cases. We must also consider whether we do not want to have words which will adequately cover the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Attorney-General has said, which goes a long way—I think entirely—towards meeting my own desires and those of my hon. Friends, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in line 14, after "improvements," insert:
due regard being had to any depreciation in the value of the improvements.
I do not think it is necessary to argue the Amendment, but it does not seem clear from the wording of the Clause itself as to whether regard would be taken to the depreciation of an improvement which might have been made since the war started. The Attorney-General in his opening remarks seemed to indicate that the compensation would be of the value of the improvements when they were taken over, that is, including depreciation, but we would like to have that point clear. I will not argue it in case the Minister intends to give me a satisfactory answer right away.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks. The point is already covered in the wording of the Bill. I would draw his attention


to the words which say that such additional sum,
… by way of addition to the value,… as may be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances…
It would obviously, in my submission, not be reasonable to ignore the depreciation of the improvements since they were made. Therefore the point is covered.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Studholme: I beg to move, in line 15, leave out from "moneys," to end of Clause.
I believe the Attorney-General mentioned something connected with this matter when he moved the Clause, but I did not quite catch what he said. I move this Amendment because it seems to me that the last words of this Clause as it stands make a provision which is of very little practical value, and merely adds another burden to those already borne by the farmer. The farmers already have enough forms to fill up, in all conscience, and they are very often sitting up scratching their heads half the night as it is. In farming, where one is contending with nature, all sorts of factors over which the farmer has no control have to be taken into account. How much profit he makes is largely dependent on the weather and on the seasons, and his returns vary from year to year. Is it really reasonable to ask the farmer to state on a form how much of his profit is due to the fact that he has put up a new pigsty, or built a shippen or drained a field? It might be possible to work this out over a period of years, but farm profits are reckoned on the total farming operations, and what a farmer gains on his pigs he may very likely lose on his corn. The Clause, as worded, may look very tidy on paper to somebody sitting in an office, but in practice I cannot see that it will produce any useful result. The only thing it will do will be to exasperate further the unfortunate farmer. He 'will have to fill up another form asking him questions to which I fail to see how he will be able to give the answers. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter, and I would ask him if he will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Molson: I would like to say a word in support of the Amendment. As I understand the purpose of the Clause

which my right hon. Friend is moving, it is to make more adequate provision in cases where capital expenditure has been undertaken, either upon agricultural land or any other kind of property. I very much doubt whether it is quite reasonable, when expenditure of that kind has taken place, and where it has been good and wise expenditure, and as a result of that either production on agricultural land or output from the factory has been increased, that when the Government or local authority takes over that land or that property there shall be deducted from the additional capital expenditure the return which the owner of that land or factory may have had in the years since the capital expenditure was incurred. Really the effect of this, carried to its logical conclusion, should be that if a Government Department have made a mistake, and have directed a farmer or landowner to undertake capital expenditure which, in fact, has turned out to be completely unprofitable, the landowner would be entitled to recover in compensation the whole capital expenditure—

The Attorney-General: This is based on value, not on cost.

Mr. Molson: I am sorry, I do not quite follow. The position, as I understand it, is that under the general structure of the Clause ordinary capital expenditure incurred is photographed back to 1939. The purpose of this Clause is to give additional compensation on the basis of the higher cost when capital expenditure has been incurred during the war for a public purpose, or in accordance with a direction. As I understand the words—I hope I am not misunderstanding them—which my hon. and gallant Friend is proposing should be omitted, in assessing the additional compensation that would be payable, account should be taken of any increased return or increased price in respect of the profit on work done on the improved land. If I am wrong the Attorney-General will no doubt correct me. It appears to me there is some confusion here between compensation for capital expenditure and the return which has been received from that capital expenditure.

Commander Galbraith: I support this Amendment. It is very difficult indeed to decide what is to be recovered in this case. It seems to me


rather unjust in a way to recover something which may have arisen from the expenditure of this money, together with work which has been applied. It seems to me that the words "or of products of" will have that effect. A certain sum of money may be spent, but if as the result of the manufacture of something the person concerned makes money, he is seemingly going to have some of that taken into account, though that profit may be the direct result of some of his labour. From that point of view, I would suggest that these words might be omitted.

The Attorney-General: I have done my best to follow what has been said, but I am still of opinion that this is a reasonable provision. This applies where a man has an opportunity of getting an increase over and above the normal 30 per cent., based on certain grounds, which I explained just now. I should have thought that you ought to take into account, in deciding what was a fair addendum to give, the fact that for a considerable period a man has had an increased return as a result of his expenditure. This increased return may go on for some time. Take the case of a subsidy, as a result of which a farmer has been able to increase his return several times over. I should have thought that that would have been taken into account, as compared with the case of a man who has incurred expenditure and has not got an increased return.
Take the case of one man who has got land under a lease and has not been able to benefit from the improvements; and of another man who was able to put up the rent at once and get an immediate return in respect of this extra expenditure. I should have thought that you ought to treat these two cases differently, and say, "in the first case the man has expended this money, but has had a substantial return from it over a considerable period, while in the other case the man has not had any return from it." We still think that this is a matter which the arbitrator ought to be able to take into account. He will have to do it on fairly broad lines. I do not think that, in practice, it will involve any great and troublesome filling up of forms. It will be applied only where it is fairly easy to apply, and where it is obvious that the expenditure has resulted in a fairly substantial increased return.

Mr. Manningham,-Buller: I would ask the Attorney-General to look at this matter again. I listened carefully to his argument, and it seems to me quite illogical. You are taking over a capital asset from the owner—the owner-occupier, luckily, does not come into this—and you are going to say, "We will pay you the value of it, but we have to deduct from that value at the present time such sum as this improvement may have brought into your pocket." I am applying my argument to agriculture at present, although it applies equally to industrial undertakings. A man who improves his holding and makes use of that improvement will, in fact, get less for that improvement than the man who makes an improvement which he does not use. The second man will have to be paid more by the local planning authority. If a man, for instance, puts up a pig-sty and does not use it, he will, I understand, get the value of the pig-sty. If he puts up a pig-sty and does use it, he will get the value less the amount that the litters of pigs which have been born in that pig-sty will bring in. The poor farmer, when he makes a claim, will have to make a return showing whether in fact he has had sufficient litters to meet the cost of the improvement. I suggest that it is a somewhat novel thing, when any capital asset is acquired, that one should have a deduction made from the capital value of that asset according to the return in income that that asset has produced in years gone by. I would ask the Attorney-General to look into the matter again very carefully.

Mr. Woodburn: I do not think that the argument of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) meets the whole case. It is easy to take an instance like that of the pig-sty, and to make a story round it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Take a chicken-coop, then.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: A pig-sty, I think, usually smells like some of the arguments. Suppose that somebody, for the purposes of the war, has spent £100 on a new building in industry, and that that has been used for five years. The Income Tax authorities have already allowed the owner depreciation on that building, free of Income Tax, at the very high rate at


which Income Tax is to-day. That would be a free gift to the person if you allowed it to go by default.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely that obsolescence allowance would be taken into account when assessing the value at the time of acquisition.

Mr. Woodburn: Surely that is the point—that you should assess the value at the time of acquisition.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member is evading the argument.

Mr. Woodburn: If a person is allowed to accumulate depreciation, that is a very simple return. Owing to the circumstances of the war, that man may have put up a building that may bring in a very large sum of money; and if you take into account the circumstances of the war for giving him the money, there should be some account taken of whether he has benefited from the building. I appreciate that there may be arguments the other way, but there should be some discretion left to the assessor to take into account what is the return in that respect.

Major Thorneycroft: I hope that we shall have an undertaking from the Attorney-General that he will look into the matter, because I think my hon. and gallant Friend has raised a point of real substance. It is suggested that, in the case of a man who, say, five years ago invested £100 in industry, if the building is taken over, all the return from the investment in that industry should be taken into account against the compensation value. Then the person would have his capital taken away, and rendered useless for five years. That is the effect of the Clause as it stands. Suppose a man spent £100 on improvements two years ago, and he draws £5 a year in profits as a return on that expenditure. Is that to be counted against him? I suppose that, if he is a wise man, he invested that £100 simply to get something on it. It seems to me that the Attorney-General is confused between capital and interest in this matter I think we are entitled to a fuller statement than we have had.

The Attorney-General: I will do my best. I do not think I am confusing capital and interest, but I agree that this is a different matter from compensation. We are dealing here with expenditure

which has taken place so far. Take the case where the Government have fixed a contract price at a certain level, having regard to the fact that it has involved considerable capital expenditure by the firm. There are many cases of that kind, and it would be quite wrong to exclude that consideration from the amount you give under this Clause.

Mr. Molson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just spoken about a Government contract. Presumably, a Government contract is paid for out of public money, and the previous words, which are not to be omitted from the Clause, say:
which may have been made for the payment of any of the cost thereof out of public moneys.
Therefore, the example which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given has no bearing at all on the case.

The Attorney-General: There has been a great fixing of prices. Some things are now cheap, and, though we do not complain, a great many prices have been fixed at a level higher than before, because of extra capital expenditure involved. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but I think it is so.

Major Thorneycroft: I hope the Attorney-General will not argue that price-fixing by the Government, which is, presumably, to keep prices down, has increased the profits.

The Attorney-General: You have to take all sorts of things into account, in some industries, increased wages, and, in others, increased capital expenditure. I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friends, but I believe that this is an item which ought to be taken into account. I think I appreciate the point they make, and I agree that, in certain circumstances, it is a perfectly fair point. We will certainly look into it in that light. I think there is a point here which ought to be covered, and if my hon. Friends will be content with that—I do not accept their argument at all—we will look at it again.

Major Studholme: On the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the point again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Supplemental provisions relating to the two preceding Sections.)

(1) On a claim being made for payment of a sum under either of the two last preceding Sections as a supplement to any compensation the purchasing authority may settle the claim in agreement with the person entitled to the compensation, and in default of agreement the claim shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, who shall have the like powers with respect to procedure and costs as he has under that Act:

Provided that—

(a) a county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question arising on such a claim whether the claimant is a person who is to be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be an owner-occupier; and
(b) in lieu of the provisions of the said Act of 1919 as to the statement of special cases, the arbitrator may at any stage of the proceedings before him, and shall if so directed by the judge of a county court, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of that court any question of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and may state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of a county court.

(2) The Treasury may make regulations prescribing the manner in which, and matters by reference to which, any valuation required for the purposes of the determination of a claim for payment of a sum under either of the two last preceding Sections is to be made.

(3) Provision may be made by an order made by the Treasury and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament for substituting, in view of any circumstances arising since the passing of this Act, for any reference in the Section of this Act (Supplement to compensation in case of owner-occupiers) to thirty per cent. a reference to such higher or lower percentage as may be specified in the order, either generally or as respects any particular provision of that Section.

An order or orders may be made under this Sub-section as respects such period or respective periods as appear to the Treasury to be appropriate, and any such order shall have effect (if approved as aforesaid) in relation to interests in respect of which notices to treat are served during the period as respects which the order is made.

(4) Where the person entitled to any compensation would apart from this provision be entitled to receive a sum as a supplement to that compensation under both of the two last preceding Sections, he shall be entitled to receive whichever of those sums is the greater, to the exclusion of the other.

(5) A sum payable under either of the two last preceding Sections as a supplement to any compensation shall be held and disposed of in like manner as if it had formed part of

the compensation and, where the compensation carries interest, shall carry interest at the rate and from the date at and from which interest on the compensaion is payable.

(6) References in this Part of this Act to the time of service of a notice to treat shall include references to the time at which such a notice deemed by virtue of the Sixth Schedule to this Act or of any other enactment to have been served is to be deemed to have been served.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think that, at this stage, the Committee would want me to deal at great length with this Clause, which deals with supplemental provisions relating to the two preceding Sections. I will, very shortly, put the object of these supplemental provisions before the Committee, and I hope they will give the Clause its Second Reading. Sub-section (1) deals with the method of assessing the compensation. First, it allows for agreement, and, in default of agreement, for the case to go to the official arbitrator, but there are two special points. You can go to the county court on questions arising out of the problem of the owner-occupier and, instead of having a case on a point of law stated to the High Court, your stated case will go to the county court, which we think is suitable in this connection. If there is any point of principle, it can go to the Court of Appeal from the county court, like other matters.
The second Sub-section gives the Treasury some regulation-making powers, and I think my hon. Friends who pay attention to this, will consider that they come within the sphere of regulation-making powers which they have approved. They will be such matters as the application of Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land Act to these applications and the various Rules that appeared in that Section, the question of valuations of tenancies under Sub-section (2) (b) and questions of split valuations as between property and site. I am sure my hon. Friends will agree that these are matters that require regulation-making powers.
The third Sub-section deals with the question which I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has in mind, and I would like the Committee to consider this. Provision is made that, after the


Act, an order can be made by the Treasury and approved oy Resolution cot each house of Parliament for substituting, in view of circumstances that have arisen after the passing of the Act, a different figure for the 30 per cent. There is an Amendment on this point, but the point I wanted my hon. Friends to have in mind is that this is strictly prospective and will only apply to notices to treat given after the Order is laid and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and will not apply to past matters in that limited sense. I think the Committee will appreciate that that change can only be made for the clear future, and with the full assent of this House and of the other House of Parliament.
Sub-section (4) deals with the point, which is a small but 'useful one, that both forms of supplement, the owner-occupier one and the supplement we have just been discussing, will be ascertained. The claimant does not need to choose between the different supplements and then find that he backed the wrong horse. They will both be ascertained, and he will get the better one, which is fair. Sub-section (5) is a provision that, although there may be that distinction, and delay in getting the supplement, because they have to be ascertained, it will, for legal purposes, form part of the same fund, which will be useful for trustees. Sub-section (6) is a provision that notice to treat in certain cases is deemed to have been served. I hope that is a clear summary of the provisions of this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to prescribe rate of interest payable where entry made before payment of compensation.)

(1) The rate of interest for any period after the commencement of this Act on compensation which fell or falls, in default of agreement, to be ascertained in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (whether as originally enacted or as amended by this Act), in respect of land compulsorily purchased on which entry has been made before the payment of the compensation shall, in lieu of being the rate of 5 per cent. specified in Section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, be 4 per cent per annum or such other rate as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury under this Section.

(2) The Treasury may from time to time make regulations prescribing the rate at which

such interest as aforesaid for the period after the coming into force of the regulations, and before the coming into force of any subsequent regulations made under this Section, is to be payable.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause prescribes that the rate of interest, which, as provided under the Land Clauses Act of 100 years ago, is not more than 5 per cent., shall, in accordance with modern practice, be only 4 per cent., and may be varied from time to time.

Earl Winterton: I do not quite follow my right hon. Friend's statement. I understood him to say that, formerly, 5 per cent. was payable, and it is now being reduced to 4 per cent. Can the Minister explain that?

Mr. Morrison: On the general grounds that interest rates are lower now than they were 100 years ago, when 5 per cent, was prescribed, and that a rate of 4 per cent. is a fair rate of interest in modern times.

4.0 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I am not so certain that it is so. I am not sure that this has regard to the normal rate paid by private lenders or borrowers as the case may be, and you will find that it is below the ordinary level. It should certainly be at the rate of five per cent.

Mr. MacLaren: Ask the usurers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Application of Rule as to Assessment of Compensation in certain special cases.)

1. Where in ascertaining the value of any such interest, or the amount of any such damage, as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of the Section (Assessment of Compensation) of this Act regard is to be had to rent payable in respect of a tenancy created after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine (whether the tenancy is vested in the person claiming the compensation or not) the said rent shall be taken to he the lesser of the two following amounts, that is to say,—

(a) the rent in fact payable in respect of the tenancy; or


(b) the maximum rent which would have been obtainable from a willing tenant if the tenancy had been created on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, for the like term and subject to the like covenants and conditions.

2. Where the value of any such interest, or the amount of any such damage, as aforesaid is increased by reason of the possibility of redeveloping the land in which the interest subsists, or the land affected by severance or injuriously affected, as the case may be, in combination with other land, the amount of the increase shall be disregarded in so far as that possibility is attributable to circumstances, other than the effluxion of time, occurring since the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.

3. In ascertaining the value of any such interest as aforesaid, or the amount of any such damage as aforesaid, a dwelling-house to which the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925, applied at the time of service of the notice to treat shall not be treated as a dwelling-house to which those enactments then applied unless they applied thereto at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
I hope that the Committee will agree that it is enough to say that this Schedule is no different from the Seventh Schedule in the Bill as introduced—we have all had an opportunity of, considering that—and it applies the Rule as to the assessment of compensation in certain special cases. I think that in these circumstances that will be sufficient to commend it to the Committee for a Second Reading.

Sir J. Mellor: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend how the first paragraph of the Schedule will work out? I am not at all clear about it, and would be grateful if he would give a short explanation as to how it will work.

The Solicitor-General: I am not clear what is troubling my hon. Friend on this point, and I would like to know what he has in his mind.

Sir J. Mellor: It provides that compensation is to be based upon the lesser of two amounts. Will that, in all cases, tend to increase the amount of compensation, or will it, in some cases, tend to reduce it?

The Solicitor-General: I am still a little puzzled about what my hon. Friend requires. The alternatives are:

the rent in fact payable in respect of the tenancy; or the maximum rent which would have been obtainable from a willing tenant if the tenancy had been created on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, for the like term and subject to the like covenants and conditions.
And you have to take the lesser of these amounts. The first one—the actual rent—is quite easy. The second is an adaptation of the old rating principle, that you take what is known as the hypothetical rent. That seems a reasonable thing, and taking one or the other, you choose the lesser, and that is the point in the new Schedule.

Sir J. Mellor: By choosing the lesser, will that tend to increase or diminish the amount of compensation in all cases or in some? It is that about which I am not clear. I want to appreciate what is the consequence of introducing a notional situation as distinct from the actual one.

The Solicitor-General: The point in introducing the notional is that, if the rent which is in fact payable in respect of the tenancy is greater than the hypothetical tenant's rent, then in accordance with the principle which has always been applied in these rating and valuation matters, you go to the fair hypothetical rent, which is fixed according to well-known precedents, and you take that, although it is the lesser. If my hon. Friend was appealing against the rating valuation of his buildings, the fact that a large rent was being paid for those buildings owing to some special circumstances or through some special arrangement, it would not prevent him going into comparisons and finding out what was the proper rent the hypothetical tenant should pay. We are simply applying the same principle here, and I suggest that it is a reasonable way of dealing with the matter.

Sir J. Mellor: I really did not understand why my hon. and learned Friend should put in an alternative. Why take the lesser of the actual or the notional? Why not take the one or the other in this case?

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may put it to my hon. Friend once again. When you are valuing you try to get, within human limitations, at the true value. It may be that the actual rent is your true value. It may be an artificial value. If it is an artificial value, you


take the problem on what the hypothetical tenant would pay at the critical time. Then, if that is the lesser, that would be the true value which you should choose, and therefore you take it and work upon it. My hon. Friend would be very annoyed if it was a question of the rating of his properties, and if a special rent was being paid for a special reason and he was not allowed to go back to the hypothetical tenant. He would then say that this is the rent. We say the same here.

Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended on recommittal, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.9 P.m.

Mr. Silkin: Now that we have reached the end of our consideration of the Bill, it is appropriate to say a few words on the fate of the Bill during its long and hazardous course through this House. The Bill presents to-day a very different picture from that of the Bill originally introduced. It has been amended in many ways—I wish I could say improved but that does not altogether apply. The Bill still contains many of the defects which were criticised on the Second Reading. It is still a Bill which contemplates piecemeal and not comprehensive planning. It still encourages local authorities to regard planning as being merely the reinstatement of certain areas, particularly areas of extensive war damage, and it certainly gives a financial inducement not to have regard to the other areas equally in need of redevelopment.
I do not wish to enlarge on this, because it forms the subject of a good deal of what I said on Second Reading and on the occasion of the revised financial Clauses, but it is important that it should be said that this Bill is still unsatisfactory from the point-of-view of giving local authorities powers to develop their areas comprehensively.
As regards the general powers provided in the Bill, there is an improvement today, because the Bill enables local

authorities to acquire open spaces, which it did not do before. However, there is still the unsatisfactory new Clause 17 which deals with the disposal of land by local authorities, and I should hazard the guess that that will be looked at again in another place, and the Clause which gives local authorities power to carry out development is still not satisfactory. There are still too many restrictions upon local authorities carrying out development which is essential if we are to have good planning.
As to the procedure, I readily admit that in a number of respects the procedure is better than it was when the Bill was originally introduced, particularly as regards the question of the public inquiry, which will be held now only at the discretion of the Minister. However, a good many new provisions have been made during the passage of this Bill which give to those who are desirous of obstructing town planning—and I regret to say there will be many such people—greater opportunities of carrying out that obstruction. Owing to pressure of work in this House, it has not been possible to work this out in detail, but I should guess that the Amendments in Committee and on the Report stage have added some four or five months to the time which will be required for a local authority to carry out its normal acquisition of land, particularly in areas of extensive war damage. In one fell swoop my right hon. Friend gave away at least two months—the period in which it is necessary to advertise before the scheme is actually approved by the local authorities. And in other ways he has given away odd days here and there, with the result that all the time improvements made in Committee were more than given away on the Report stage, and the Bill to-day is a slower Bill—I say this quite seriously—and will make the acquisition of land for re-development in areas of extensive war damage much slower than when the Bill was introduced.
In regard to finance, there have been some improvements but the financial assistance is still inadequate. There is still no financial assistance given to local authorities to enable them to carry out the re-development of their areas of bad lay-out and obsolete development, or to deal with general planning. All that has to be done


solely at a cost to the local authority itself, and since it is almost axiomatic that the areas most in need of redevelopment on account of bad lay-out and obsolete development happen to be the areas which are the poorest, it means that this burden will be heaviest where it can least be afforded, and there is a very great danger that we shall not get re-development owing to the poverty of the local authorities concerned. The question of terms of compensation for acquisition of land is still so fresh in the minds of the House that I do not think I need enlarge on it, except to say that the concessions made by the Government will impose an added burden on the local authorities, and thereby on the general body of ratepayers, and make their task more difficult. However, I am prepared to admit that I think this House was in the mood to be, if anything, generous to the bona fide owner-occupier of land if displaced as a result of the operations of the local authorities, and therefore I do not personally grudge the Amendments which have been made to the Bill.
Summing up, I would say that this is undoubtedly an incomplete Bill. It fails to deal with one of the vital problems of planning, the question of compensation in respect of injurious affection of the landlord—that is still left very much in the air—and the question of betterment. It is an incomplete machine for carrying out the re-planning of areas in need of development, but it is a step. By itself it is a very short step and a very poor step, but as part of the series of Measures to permit of large-scale comprehensive planning, it is on the whole an acceptable step. I hope that in its passage through another place it will not be too badly mutilated, but improved in some of the directions which I have indicated.
I think I ought to offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has handled this Measure throughout its stages. I have not always agreed with him, and on at least one occasion I have been very cross with him, but I feel that, on the whole, the House will wish to congratulate him on the even temper in which he has dealt with rather trying conditions at times, and the very able way, if I may say so, in which he has dealt with rather difficult problems, at very short notice at times. I hope that when the local

authorities get this Measure, they will take the fullest advantage of it, with all its imperfections, and will not regard these imperfections as reasons for not doing all they can with the instrument at hand.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I regret the tone of almost unrelieved gloom in which the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has given his valedictory message on this Bill. I would ask him to cheer up.

Mr. Silkin: It is only my manner. I did not intend to cast such gloom.

Mr. Molson: I am very glad that it was not really gloom in the heart, but only apparent gloom. The nature of Parliamentary discussion is always such that it is not possible for us to find that after a Bill has been considerably amended in Committee it is in all respects improved from our own point of view. I am sure that the hon. Member for Peckham will realise that there have been at any rate two points of view about this Bill, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has, I think, shown both reason and moderation in trying to meet all legitimate points made from both sides while, at the same time, remaining inflexible upon the real purpose of the Bill, which was to provide an instrument which would enable local authorities to carry out the urgent task of re-building and reconstruction in the devastated towns.
I hope that the modifications made in Committee will, on the whole, make the Bill a more workable one. I would say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been critical of the increased compensation given in a number of cases, that it is not likely in the long run to prove advantageous to the best interests of planning if the compensation paid is not sufficient to make the local authorities willing, with a clear conscience, to carry out extensive purchases. But I did feel that when the Bill was introduced the Government were amply justified in standing firm on the 1939 prices. As the Minister pointed out yesterday, in the original recommendations made by the Uthwatt Committee it was proposed that the 1939 prices should be the ceiling, and, as "The Economist" pointed out, that meant that the local authorities would have the best of both worlds. If the value of land


had gone up they could elect to acquire it at 1939 prices and if it had gone down in value they could elect to buy it at the market price. When the Government wisely, I think, decided that such a policy would be inequitable and unreasonable it meant that they were no longer under any obligation to accept the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee with regard to values as opposed to prices.
I feel that property as such has been dealt with as fairly and as reasonably as possible under the compensation Clauses. Anything less would have resulted in grave injustices as between one landowner and another. In some cases it would have resulted in excessive and unreasonable prices being paid by the local authority to acquire land. As regards additional compensation which is given to the occupier as such, that seems to be entirely justifiable on the grounds that the Minister himself has put forward, namely, that the occupier is deprived of a roof over his head. I therefore congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government upon the line they have taken during this Debate, and I hope and believe that this Measure will prove effective for the purposes for which it is intended.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope I may begin with two personal sentences to the Minister. One is a customary one but is none the less genuinely meant for being customary, namely, to offer congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend upon the Parliamentary skill which he has displayed and also upon the graciousness with which he has exercised that sufferance which he has told us is the Ministerial badge and which, indeed, always ought to be the Ministerial badge. They have the fun of being Ministers, and we ought to be allowed the fun of operating "slings and arrows" even from behind as much as we like. The second thing I want to say to him is that if by chance I am not here for the end of his speech I hope he will not attribute it to any discourtesy; it will be merely due to force majeure.
I wish particularly to refer to the compensation part of this Bill, not that I am not as much interested in the other parts as the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin)—I hope I am, though less knowledgeable than he is—I hope I am as

much desirous as he is of planning in the limited sense of this Bill, although I am prejudiced against planning with a big "P" and in the general and theoretical sense. I wish to say something about the compensation Clauses particularly for this reason: I do not ask the House to believe me in the two historical parallels I am going to draw from them, because I am not quite sure that I am right about them, I have not looked them up and I speak from recollection; but I think I am right in saying that in the 15th century when the first attempt was made to impose Income Tax the House swallowed it only upon the condition that it should not be made a precedent. I have not found that that has saved me from paying Income Tax upon my modest earnings.
I think it happened again at the time of the Napoleonic wars. I believe the House then decided that the Inland Revenue records should not be preserved and that a recent historian has been able to write the history of that taxation only because, by a mistake, the second or carbon copies were kept. I venture to tell the House this to remind it of the extreme danger of accepting Ministerial assurances that legislation is merely pro hac vice, "for this turn only," with no effect upon the future, and that it is not to be drawn into a precedent.
I think the danger in the compensation part of this Bill is that it may alter for all time the meaning of the word "compensation" in our law, and the meaning of the word "property," especially real property, in our law. The Minister assured us that that was not his intention, but it was clearly the intention of some of his supporters on the other side of the House, and, indeed, of some of his supporters on this side of the House; one of whom told us that during the last five years all rewards and appointments had been the result of service and not of property or position, He did not tell us what the service had been which had gained him a place in this House, but I gather that it had not been service either as a gunner or as a lexicographer; because he hoped that these compensation Clauses would be a spike in the coffin of one sort of ownership. Well, it is not coffins you spike; it is guns. What you do to coffins, outside Aberdeen, is to knock nails into them. I fully understand some hon. Gentlemen opposite wishing to see, as a by-product of the


rebuilding of our cities, the "coffining" of some sorts of property.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pickthorn: My right hon. Friend opposite cheers me, so I will permit myself to give what I hope is a not impertinent warning. The electorate may not be very astute, but in the long run it has a considerable sense of fairness, and when it looks back upon this period the main question it will ask itself may prove to be this: Which party tried the most and which party least tried to make political profit out of the war? If the electorate does come to ask itself that question, then the cheering from the Front Bench opposite of the suggestion that the rebuilding of our cities should be used to alter the nature of property in this country may not, in the long run, prove to have been very prudent. The essence of real property—and I say it with the utmost trepidation, in view of the four legal luminaries who shine at me and, unlike the moon, shine even from the wrong side—is that the specific nature of our law, in contrast to other systems of law, is that we divide property into real and personal, which nobody else does. The whole essence of real property, upon which, incidentally, all our liberties have been founded, as I think I could show, Mr. Speaker, if you thought this was the proper time, has been that it was the property which gave character to the thing and not the person. Therefore, actions for its possession or recovery were real actions, and so on. But here we are introducing the personal element into real property. It is all very well for the Attorney-General to shake his head. I like to see the Front Bench shake its head, or heads, because it shows that something must have got into them or it. But it is not really effective argumentation just to shake.
The essence of real property was that it was the property that mattered. We are saying that that is not to be so. We are saying that if Nos. 40 and 42 Acacia Road, Peckham, get blown to blazes and No. 40 was occupied by its owner while No. 42 was not, then No. 40 was worth £1,000 and No. 42 was worth £1,300—unless I have it the wrong way round. That is changing the nature of property

and the nature of the meaning of compensation. It has been suggested once or twice ungenerously in this House, and with extremes of ungenerosity and illogicality in the Press, that those who take the kind of view which I take on this subject are concerned to preserve their own property or the property of their likes. There is very little property in which I have any personal interest, but there is some of a kind which might be affected by the Bill, and no doubt much greater amounts of the endowments of my college and university. But I beg hon. Members to believe, that after all the sell-criticism of which I am capable, I do not think that affects my opinion in the least.
Suppose the Government said, "Having made the best calculation we can about this, we have decided that it is going to cost £100,000,000." I am taking purely meaningless figures. "If we compensated in the dictionary sense, that is to say gave a counter-balance, an equivalent, a requital or a recompense, we think, in view of all the things we have to do—education, social services, getting back on to a peace basis and all that—the population of the country cannot face that amount, so we are going to calculate as if it were to be the whole amount and then are going to give 80 per cent., or even 50 per cent., or even 30 or even 20 per cent." I should have very bitterly regretted it, but I should not have been heartbroken. But when the Government does what it does in the Bill, alters the meaning of the word "property," and of the word "compensation," and lands itself in a long series of illogical shifts to try to justify that, we have damaged the nature and meaning of property for all eternity, and genuinely astute Members on the other side ought to regret that because it will not benefit them in the long run. Certainly Members on this side should bitterly regret it if that should be the result, and I see no easy way out of it.
I could go through the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my right hon. and learned Friend and of the Attorney-General and demonstrate, I think, almost mathematically that they have been landed in illogicalities. To compensate is to give something of the same weight as one is compensating for. Any watchmaker will tell you that: It is no use saying "There are no scales, so I


cannot give the same weight." That does not get us out of the duty to find something of the same weight. The Government have to find some other method, more particularly when it is they who have chucked all the scales out of the window. It is the Government that have created this situation, and the fact that the customary scales of a normally acting private enterprise market are not there makes more difficult but in no way lessens the duty of the Government to give something which is of the same weight as that which they, or the local authorities, are taking away, and that inescapable duty the Government, in my judgment, have shirked.
When they shirked it people started saying that there would be hardships here and hardships there, and the Government had to look round for a way of limiting the hardships. They do not call it a way of limiting hardships, because they were more intelligent than the hon. and learned Gentleman, naturally—with their combined wisdom they are more intelligent than any of us. So it is not criticising the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) when I say they are more intelligent than he. He said "Barclay's Bank do not need the money," as if this were a question of handling out doles to people who are in need because of some act of God. It is not. It is compensation that we are talking about. Seeing that there would be hardships, they looked round and said, "Which are the smaller men?" and they produced this method which they cannot logically defend, because if the 30 per cent. is in respect of occupancy why does an occupant not get it unless he is the owner? I hope I have made this sufficiently plain and I hope the House will believe that our basis of criticism and our fear have nothing to do with more or less money. They have nothing to do with the poor widow against the rich banker. My right hon. and learned Friend talked about getting rid of unfair compensation "for this period." How is he going to draw the line when the period ends and the "unfair" competition that he has got rid of begins to be fair again? It is going to be a difficult thing, even if he is still in his present office in six years' time. What we are afraid of is that by accepting this argument we have altered the meaning of "compensation" and thereby altered the meaning of "real property." For that reason we must

regard it with some suspicion and regret and we must do everything in our power to make sure that its effects are as short and temporary as possible.

4.39 P.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I am afraid I cannot join with those who finish the long discussions that we have had on this Bill by damning it with faint praise. I listened with interest to a large amount of the discussion and I used what persuasive powers I have to try to amend it, and now on the Third Reading I have to ask myself whether it is a Bill which I can now support and, with regret, I have to tell the House that I feel, in spite of all that has been said about it, that it is one which this House should not now pass. It is not an honest Bill. Its Title is "Town and Country Planning Bill" and I am sure that is a misnomer. In fact, it is a Bill for the re-development of blitzed and blighted areas. It is not a Town Planning Bill in any true sense of the word. For instance, it does not work to a master plan. It is only piecemeal planning. It is piecemeal legislation, and the planning which can take place under it is in a physical sense piecemeal. For instance, local authorities have no promise of anything wider than that the whole of the planning they will be able to do must be on a piecemeal basis. They will be unable to plan the areas which the Bill enables them to purchase by fitting them in with any wider scheme. They will still be forced in planning any particular plot of land to consider what is the cost of the individual plot. They will not be able to average the price of the land over the whole area of the city as a real planning Bill should make possible.
Therefore, under this Bill we shall be perpetuating the bad development which puts blocks of flats on to an expensive site in a more crowded way than they should be, and pushes the housing estates to the outskirts of the city where the land is cheaper. The Bill is just a continuation of the planning policy which we had in the year before the war. I believe that when the time comes for real planning Measures to be put through, on both national and local scales, a great deal of the development that has taken place under this Bill will have to be scrapped. The Bill is starting development in a wrong direction at a time when development has been stopped. That will have various effects. Members of councils and officials will get,


as it were, a vested interest in particular schemes that have been conceived under this Bill. Therefore, when the time comes for more comprehensive lanning powers to be taken they will, having got a vested interest in a lesser scheme, not wish to change. This will take place at a time when, I am sure, the public generally is more aware of the principles of good planning and what can be done than at any other time that I remember.
Another result of this piecemeal planning will be that when we come to plan on a wider scale it will be much more difficult and expensive to embody the development that has already taken place. In this Bill areas developed as shopping centres or factory areas will be rebuilt on more or less the old pattern in many cases, and it will be difficult and expensive to alter this, when, in 15 or 20 years' time, big alterations are needed, as they are in our cities. The crux of the matter is that development and building are now at a standstill. That gives us a tremendous opportunity to say that when it starts again, as it must in the next two years, it will proceed in the right direction. As development starts it will get a momentum, and if it gets a momentum in the wrong direction a large force will have to be applied to it to reduce the speed of the building programme, to bring it to a standstill and to start again in the right direction. We are, therefore, laying up for ourselves in the future the expenditure of a great deal of effort which will be unnecessary if we start on the right lines now.
This is a Bill that contains a great many anomalies—anomalies, for instance, of compensation. I do not believe that the compensation proposals give real justice to anyone. On the global figures they do a great injustice to the community as a whole. Injustice is done to individual owners of property, but in the main the community will be paying too much for the land it buys. On the other hand, there are cases where some individuals will be getting too little. That is because the basis of the compensation is a wrong and illogical one. It is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) referred at some length during the passage of the Bill. It is impossible to produce a scheme of compensation for the acquisition of property by the public which is based on the idea that it is the property that has rights and that it is not the indi-

vidual who really enjoys the rights. As long as we try to base our compensation on the principle that the rights of property are the realities rather than the rights of the individual, we shall have all these anomalies.

Major Lloyd: I have been trying very hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I became completely fogged when he suggested that we should differentiate between the rights of property and the rights of individuals.

Mr. Lawson: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the speech which I made on Second Reading, or which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple made on the compensation Clauses, he will see in some detail what I mean. While not wishing to weary the House, I will develop it briefly. The argument about compensation in this Bill has been on the following lines. Here is some person with small means. The proposal to apply certain rates of compensation to the person who has put the whole of his livelihood into half-a-dozen houses will cause a grave injustice. If a certain scale of compensation is necessary to prevent that injustice, it is argued that exactly the same scale must be applied to a person who owns a much greater amount of property. To my mind that does not follow. The basis of compensation should not be an exact valuation of the land or the house, but such compensation as is necessary to prevent hardship to the individual—in other words, a means test. That is the principle on which I stand. The hon. and gallant Member may not like it, but I think it is just and sound. This is not a question on which I am hoping to convert the hon. and gallant Member, but it is one on which I hope the people of this country will soon have an opportunity of deciding.
This Bill is also illogical because the provisions have been defended for the wrong reasons. Certain proposals, such as the 30 per cent. increase, have been inserted in the Bill. Let us be honest and say that that is political compromise between ideas which cannot be reconciled. There is no particular reason why that increase should have been 30 per cent. The Clause cannot be defended on its merits but only as a compromise necessary to keep the present Government in being. I do not think, therefore, that


the Bill is likely to last. That may be one of the good things about it. When the Coalition is ended, whichever side is in will put through a planning Measure more in keeping with its own ideas.
Lastly, it may be asked, would I rather see no Bill at all than the present Bill? I think I would. There are some occasions when "Half a loaf is better than no bread" is a wrong maxim to follow, and I am sure that this is one of them. The Bill uses a tremendous opportunity for going forward in the right direction for starting in the wrong direction, and I say therefore that we should not pass it. That may mean planning being held up for a year or two, causing inconvenience and loss to individuals and to the nation, but the merit of a Planning Bill is not tested by what is likely to happen five years from now but by what the country will be like 50 years from now. I am sure that if we do not pass the Bill but wait until really comprehensive planning is undertaken, we can use the present opportunity for making very great changes for the better in the cities and in the countryside. If we pass the Bill, we shall go on perpetuating the old bad ways. Therefore, if I can get another hon. Member to act as Teller with me, I propose to divide the House against the Bill.

4.53 P.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am glad that there was at least one point upon which I agreed with the hon. Member who has just spoken. It was when he prophesied that the Bill, in its present form, would probably not last for ever. I agree with him that it is pretty certain, for reasons which I will later advance, that substantial changes will take place in the Bill. When the hon. Member told us of the system of compensation which he supports, he did so in much the same words as his leader, and it amounted to this, that nobody should have more than £1,000 a year. We understand now exactly where we are. That, turned into plain language, means that the hon. Member and his party would expropriate all wealth over £30,000—

Mr. H. Lawson: Why not?

Mr. Stewart: It is well we know where we stand—in the possession of private or public firms, co-operative societies and the like. So long as that is the position, we know where Common Wealth stands.

Mr. Speaker: Common Wealth is not mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir, and for that we are thankful. Like hon. Members opposite, I was one of those who felt unable to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, for the reason, as I then thought, that the financial arrangements in the Bill were inadequate. The Minister undertook, as the result of strong representations made to him, to have consultations with the local authorities, and he did so. As a result of those talks a good deal of better sense was imported into the Measure, and my right hon. Friend was able to return to the House with a Bill which the local authorities regarded as much more workable and which the House has accepted as a much better arrangement. For that, my right hon. Friend deserves credit and the thanks of the House. I have never felt happy about the 1939 basis.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the hon. Member ever felt happy in his life?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, quite often.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not believe it.

Mr. Stewart: I felt very happy on the occasion when the hon. Member paid me a great compliment. I remember that I felt great joy and gratitude for his presence on that occasion.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: . And that is not in the Bill, either.

Mr. Stewart: I have never felt happy about the 1939 basis of compensation and I was very interested to see that Mr. Trustram Eve, who knows far more about these matters than many of us, has apparently come to the same conclusion in his letter in "The Times" to-day. His criticism is rather alone the lines—

Mr. MacLaren: It is not the same man. There is a whole family of them.

Mr. Stewart: I said the gentleman's name exactly as it is in the Press and I said that he knows more about it than many of us and has come to the same conclusion as I have. That is what makes me think that when the Bill is applied in practice, it will be found to create so many anomalies and inequalities that very substantial alterations will have to be made. But it was ap-


parent from a very early stage that the 1939 basis was unalterable and that it was no good fighting for any other basis. That being so, I thought it right yesterday to support the right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) in the Amendment which he moved. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I do not want to delay the House by developing my reasons now, but perhaps I might answer that question. The Bill as it now stands links compensation with an unworkable system based upon a means test. I have been in this House for 12 years, and all that time, hon. Members opposite have condemned the means test, and have persuaded many of us that it is a thoroughly bad thing.

Mr. Kirkwood: As it applies to the workers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) appears to be discussing the subject of an Amendment which was not passed in the Committee, and therefore is not in Order now.

Mr. Stewart: I had not intended to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I referred to the fact that the Bill includes a payment based upon what amounts to a means test, and I was saying that I do not like it. I was asked why, and there is a very obvious answer. A person is to be paid something extra on account of special difficulties and disabilities. I do not like that system, and that is why I took the action I did yesterday. I am certain that it was proper action to take.
I am afraid that the system will not work and that when the Bill is put into operation, on that point great inequalities and great anomalies will present themselves. This House, or another House, will be obliged to make changes, many of them in directions advocated by hon. Members here. However, the opinion of the majority must prevail. One must accept majority opinion. That is how the democratic system works. One's only course is to wish the Bill success, and give it support in the Lobby. I do so with some regret, because I feel we are endeavouring to perform a great task, a most necessary task, in a manner that is not suited to it, and not worthy of the endeavour to which we should lay our hands. With those regrets, and accepting democracy as it works, I am bound to support the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Price: I would like to congratulate the Government on having stood firm in spite of great pressure put upon them from a certain quarter to give way on a matter which would undoubtedly have wrecked the Bill, and made it impossible for us on these Benches to support it. Having stood firm, I think they can be congratulated on bringing to the Statute Book a Bill which, if not perfect, if only, so to speak, a piecemeal Measure, is at least one which will do something to stop the worst aspects of land speculation. The beginnings of that speculation have already shown themselves in our blitzed and blighted areas.
The Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who I am sorry to see is not in his place, said, I understand, that he regretted this Bill, as introducing a dangerous principle which he hoped would not be extended. He hoped it was the end. For me it is the beginning. I hope that the principle which is in this Bill, and which was stated originally in the Uthwatt Report, will be continued in other spheres. For instance, there is speculation in land going on now in agricultural areas. Land is changing hands at almost fictitious prices, which do not represent in the least degree the true agricultural value of that land. I know there is considerable feeling among tenant farmers and agriculturists that tenants may be disturbed, that fictitious prices will be asked, and that there will be a general upsetting of the agricultural industry through overloading people with debt. It is feared that they will not have sufficient working capital because they have to buy their land at these prices, and that what happened after the last war will again take place.
This is not the end; this is the beginning. I can see that it was necessary to deal first with this specific case of the blitzed and blighted areas, rather than cover the whole ground in one big comprehensive Measure. Probably that would be difficult to carry out. But I say that the Government must not weary in well-doing, having taken this step forward. I happen always to have held the old Radical doctrine that the public value of land created by the activities of the community, in increasing site values, should not be appropriated to any private person. [Interruption.] That is an entirely


different matter. My hon. Friend must not lead me astray into discussing the whole question of land purchase. But it is the fact that this Bill will prevent speculation in the site value of a certain type of land. Here we have in this Bill steps taken to prevent, in the case of bombed sites, persons from acquiring those site values and holding them for the purpose of making money out of them. In so far as the Government have done this, I think they have deserved well of the nation.
The question of compensation is an extremely difficult one, but I take the view which has been referred to in the Debate in various speeches, that the average citizen of this country does not expect the Government to compensate him 100 per cent, for all his losses. We have only to think of the large numbers of small businesses that have been ruined, homes broken up, lives wrecked, to remember that the inequality of compensation in this Bill is a very small matter indeed. It is very difficult to make compensation absolutely even, but I feel that the best has been done on the whole. Though I looked on it with some suspicion at first, I think that this extra 30 per cent. which has now been given to owner-occupiers will meet very special cases of hardship. Therefore, provided that the Government continue to deal with the other problems as they arise in connection with site values of land, along the lines I have indicated, I wish them well. I hope this Bill will speedily find its way to the Statute Book.

5.8 p.m.

Major Lloyd: I do not propose to take up the time of the House for more than a moment or two. My sole reason for rising at all is because I want to take the opportunity of putting my own personal view on record, humble as it may be, that I strongly dislike this Bill. I do not think it is a fair Bill, and I do not think it is a just Bill, and I do not think that, in their heart of hearts, the Government think it is either. There has been far too much satisfaction and complacent smug smiles on the faces on the opposite side of the House for my taste. It is quite obvious the Bill has pleased them all through and that alone gives me a feeling that far too many concessions have been given to their point of view, and on the whole far too little

to the point of view expressed on this side. At the same time I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Minister has had a most difficult task, and although I have differed from him on many points, I have nothing but admiration for the tact and skill with which he has handled his job. I would like to pay a tribute to him, in view of the fact that I found myself in fundamental disagreement with so many of his contentions.
This Bill, the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) said, is a compromise to keep the Coalition Government in power. I do not say I subscribe entirely to that statement, but to a very large extent it is true. One side has had to make substantial concessions to the spirit of coalition, and compromise, and this side has made far and away more substantial concessions than the other side. That, to some extent, has been the story of this Coalition Government in the last two or three years. I want to make an appeal to the Government that they should not test the loyalty of ordinary back bench Members on either side too far. Compromise in coalition is a general agreement to give and take. It is not a case of all give or all take, of one side seeing how far they can press the other side back and put them into such a position because out of loyalty and other considerations they feel that they ought not to oppose the principle of coalition in wartime, and break it up. Many of us on this side have been pushed very nearly too far, and the way we have been pressed has not been fair to Members on this side of the House. Neither is it fair to property-owners.
It is not a fair Bill; it is not a just Bill. There is gross discrimination in it between one class of property-owner and another. I hope that it is not going to be a precedent, but I have a great misgiving that it may be so. I have been watching this Bill, not only because it interests me as a subject of vital importance, but because in time we shall have a Scottish Bill on somewhat similar lines, not only for the blitzed areas, but to deal with the major question of the compulsory acquisition of land. I feel that the same principle will be applied in framing the Bill to the great detriment of many Scottish property-owners. I did not vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because I did not like it; and I had great pleasure


in voting against the Government on an Amendment, because I did not like it. I sit down hoping that the Government will not again test the loyalty of Members too far.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I understand that the Douse has undergone growing pains because of this Bill. I and my hon. Friends have accepted my right hon. Friend's new Amendments, but we think they have gone rather too far. Hon. Members opposite do not share that view. We have been faced with this situation of the blitzed cities, quite apart from the question of the acquisition of land. That is a problem that we have to face. We are living in changing times. In so far as I take the view that the change is in our direction, I welcome it; but if hon. Members opposite take the view that the times are not changing in their direction, they still have to face the fact. It would be a terrible thing if we had to face the situation that will arise without some Measure of this kind on the Statute Book. I do not say that this is a Bill to my liking, but the House of Commons has done the right thing by the country in having disposed of the Bill, at this stage, on the Floor of the House of Commons. It is true that it may come back to us with Lords Amendments. That would not surprise me in the least, because my hon. Friends opposite have got a lot of—we would call them comrades—friends in another place, who no doubt will continue this great fight. This Bill is a compromise Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his resiliency in facing the facts of the situation. We have given way since the introduction of the Bill. I am not saying that I like it. We have been driven very hard by my right hon. Friend in having to accept the new Clauses, which are most distasteful. I am now taking my gruelling from my right hon. Friend. The Bill is worse than I thought it would be, but it ought not to be possible for hon. Gentlemen opposite to squeal at this stage that they do not like the Bill. Let us be proud that we have got a Bill which may be used to the benefit of the people of this country, particularly in the blitzed areas.
I am not dealing with the larger problem—I think that the Government have

mishandled that problem. As I said earlier, I think they have put the cart before the horse. But at least we have a Bill. Unsatisfactory as it may be to some of us, it is something. I hope that before the Session is ended we shall have on the Statute Book a Measure, unsatisfactory to some of us, but which at least will be something on which the local authorities may stand to proceed with their work. It will cast heavy burdens on them, which, sooner or later, this House will have to look at. I raised the same point on the Third Reading of the Education Bill. We are now casting heavy burdens on the local authorities, without having considered this major question of the relations between State and local finance. The local authorities will accept this burden, but it would be ungrateful of this House to demur at this stage from helping this Measure on to the Statute Book. With very many intellectual reservations, I accept this Bill, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he has handled it.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) just now made reference to the electorate, and what they might think. I would really be satisfied to let the electorate judge for themselves, on the way their property has come through. My hon. Friend the Senior Burgess recently raised the question of how he stood with regard to a previous Member for Cambridge University, Sir Isaac Newton. I understand that Sir Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity. It seems to me that some of the Members for Cambridge University have been tied solidly to the earth ever since. The present Senior Member certainly seems to take a rigid and old-time view of what property is entitled to. It seems to me that we should understand better that real property is human life and the human spirit, and that we ought to pay a good deal more attention to that than to bricks and mortar. At the same time, compensation must be paid in a proper manner where circumstances permit.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleague on the way they have conducted this Measure. It would have been a lamentable thing, as my right hon. Friend has said, if we had not passed this Bill, or if we had passed


it without the compensation Clauses. I am glad that the House insisted on keeping those Clauses in it; and, after a good deal of negotiation, we have succeeded, in an atmosphere of good will and give-and-take, in a sensible House of Commons way, in arriving at a conclusion which, while it may not satisfy anybody completely, will give us a Measure to enable a step forward to be taken in town planning in the blitzed areas. I hope that the Measure will go on the Statute Book, and that it will prove successful.

5.19 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I rise only to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend that, strange as it may seem, those of us who have criticised this Measure, from almost the first word in the first line, to the last word in the last line, feel that my right hon. Friend the Minister has handled the situation not only in a masterly way, but also in a spirit of good will and give-and-take. He certainly has my loyalty and my friendship. Those of us who do not like the Bill and who feel that the compensation Clauses will have to be amended later, because they will not be workable, will do everything they can—I speak for myself, and I am sure I can speak for my hon. Friends—to work them. I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the very courteous way in which he has handled the Bill. May I ask him to be good enough to supplement one undertaking, which I think he has forgotten, under Clause 46? He gave a certain undertaking, which I am sure he will implement, when he said that he would be prepared to include a provision to that effect on the Report stage, which so far has not appeared.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: So that my hon. and gallant Friend shall not pursue the matter, may I say that it is in the printed Bill as it goes to another place?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: That only goes to show that I was right when I was sure my right hon. Friend would implement his undertaking. I am sorry if I have wasted time by bringing that matter to the notice of the House again, and I conclude with the remark that I shall certainly vote for the Third Reading.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: This Bill is a very complicated Bill. Its complications have not been made easier by

the highly involved and complicated language in which it has been drafted. I would not like to say that there are any hon. Members of this House who do not understand this Bill; but I am quite sure there are a great many people outside this House who do not understand it at all. In this matter, and I think that I am expressing the opinion of both sides of the House, I invite my right hon. Friend to consider, if we have more town and country planning Bills, whether it would not be possible to express them in language of a simpler and clearer character. I have the greatest respect for the skill of the Parliamentary draftsmen, but I think that it might have been possible for this Bill to be expressed in less involved terms.
What is really wrong with this Bill is that it attempts to provide too much. In a Bill of this nature dealing with a highly complicated matter, it is desirable that there should be some flexibility in the terms of the Bill. I think that, in this Bill, the need for flexibility of that nature has not been fully appreciated. We had an example yesterday when the Committee was discussing the question of speculation. There were at least three Amendments on the Order Paper which would have dealt with that matter in a satisfactory way.

Mr. Morrison: Mr. Morrison indicated dissent.

Mr. Hutchinson: Well, the Minister may not be prepared to assent to that but, at any rate, there are many hon. Members in the House who considered that either of those Amendments would have dealt with speculation in a satisfactory way. In dealing with what is, after all, not a very complicated matter, the Government were so impressed with the supposed difficulties of the position, that they came to the conclusion that they ought not to do anything at all. I am afraid that I was unconvinced and still adhere to the opinion which I expressed yesterday that, had a little more elasticity been allowed in the Bill, it would have been possible to have dealt with that matter in a way more acceptable to the House.
May I say one word more on the difficult question of compensation? I am bound to say that, when I first saw the Bill, like many of my hon. Friends, I felt far from satisfied that the compensation Clauses were going to do justice. My mis-


givings have been, to a very large extent, removed by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a very late stage last night. I do not propose to repeat that statement, but I commend it to some of my hon. Friends who feel that we have dealt in this Bill in an unfair way with the compensation question. I invite them to study that statement and to ask themselves whether it does not go a very long way to relieve some of the doubts which they have entertained throughout.
Having said that, I join in the congratulations to the Minister on the manner in which he has handled and explained this Bill. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him, particularly for the patience and lucidity with which he has dealt with all its involved provisions.

5.26 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I rise, for only a brief period, now that the Bill is about to leave us for another place, to express my thanks for the kind expressions used by hon. Members in respect to myself and my colleagues who sit on this Bench with me. It has been a difficult Bill and one in which it has been difficult to get agreement; how difficult is well instanced by the last instance quoted by my hon. Friend who preceded me. He had an Amendment down to deal with the speculation question. My hon. Friend thought that the other two Amendments were nonsense, and the other hon. Members responsible for the other two Amendments thought that his would not work, and was equally nonsense. The Attorney-General thought they were all nonsense, and the House, in general, agreed with him. That is merely an indication of the type of difficulty which has arisen from time to time during the passage of this Measure, and, even if it fails to satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), it is something to have got a Bill of this size and scope through and to have placed such a powerful instrument in the hands of those who will have to work it.
I must say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham, and I hark back, in these remarks, to a period that seems now to be separated from us by a vast gulf and abyss of time, when we were reading this Bill for the

Second time. Since then, the hon. Member for Peckham has retained a firm grip on the two fallacies with which he first approached this Measure, the first being that, in order to plan comprehensively, you must acquire comprehensively. You can plan comprehensively without acquiring at all, but there are certain planning purposes which you cannot effect without acquisition, and it is to this particular objective of planning that the acquisition powers in this Bill are directed. The second fallacy which, if I may say so, underlies the hon. Member's approach to these matters is in the idea that you make for speed in working, by wiping away, so far as one can, the safeguards which have hitherto protected the citizen from the arbitrary exercise of governmental or municipal authority. I do not believe that to be true of our people. The hon. Member—I do not want to reopen the controversy—said that this was a slower Bill than when it entered the House. I venture to deny that emphatically. I am sure that the safeguards which we have inserted can all be operated by local authorities expeditiously and can run concurrently. They can make up their minds, and it will be found that the fairness of the Measure will make it easier for them to enforce. The truth of the matter, in one word, is this. The people of this country will not tolerate Fascism in the central government, and neither will them tolerate its municipal counterpart—Bumbledon.
I should like to express my thanks, and I know the House will expect me to do so, to my hon. Friends in all pants of the House and behind me, who have helped us so much with our arduous discussions. I should like also to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is, I think, the first big Bill which he has helped to conduct, and I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that his performance on this occasion will lead us in the future to expect, on every occasion, an example of able, lucid and good tempered exposition and argument. To my hon. and right hon. Friends the Law Officers I would say a word. They have many other duties but they have been consistent in their assistance and attendance. Once during the proceedings we were described as "a battery of lawyers on the front bench" and my hon. Friend the Senior Burgess


of Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn) improved on the use of that expression and called us "a minefield of lawyers." That must have been because he ran into us at some moment inadvertently, but though we are not a minefield, I hope we have shared, however, one characteristic of a minefield, which is, that it does not detonate unless it is trodden upon.
Those are the observations that I would offer on this occasion. I have really said so much already that I do not want to say any more on the principles of the Bill. I think, myself, that it is a powerful and an apt instrument for its purpose. I hope that the local authorities will use it, and will not be deterred from making use of its powers by any feeling about the imperfections to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham referred. I hope that they will remember that those imperfections reside mostly in the imagination of my hon. Friend. I am not saying that the Bill is perfect, but I think it is a good instrument. Through all the difficulties we have encountered in dealing with this complicated and controversial matter, I have had, in front of me, the powerful motive of trying to see that those cities of ours which have endured so gallantly and suffered so much shall be enabled to rise again more gracious, more beautiful, and more healthy than they were in the past.

5.33 P.m.

Mr. John Wilmot: I would not have ventured to intervene at this stage had not the Minister spoiled his peroration by what he said before it. Nothing could have been more unfortunate than to have besmirched the discussions that we have had upon this Bill by light-hearted charges of Fascism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is very important, and hon. Members who take seriously the letters which we receive from those who are away will know how near these subjects are to the hearts of these men. There is nobody on this side of the House who would tolerate for one moment an extension of governmental authority that was not absolutely necessary in the interests of good government, and we are as jealous as anybody of the personal liberties and rights of our citizens. In enumerating the unfavourable influences which come to bear on these things, the Minister might have remembered the landlords who, over and over again in our

history, have used land monopoly to hold up this country to ransom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Let us not forget that we have not found any compensation for those who have had to leave their businesses, their homes and their families, and go to this terrible war. In limiting the compensation, which must be paid in order to rebuild and re-develop our cities to those who will suffer the real hardship of losing the roofs over their heads, or the tools of their trade, and in resisting attempts to make an impossible charge upon people who have fought the war, in order to reimburse property-owners, my hon. Friends have done no more than what the people of this country expect. I sincerely hope that the time is not very far distant when the people of this country will express, in no uncertain manner, their determination that the land of Britain shall belong to the British.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE (FOOD REGULATIONS, OFFENCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain McEwen.)

5.35 P.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: On this occasion the matter I am raising appears to me a very serious one; so with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I shall adopt a custom which I have never adopted before, and that is, the custom of using notes in the course of a speech. In the first instance, and in order to prepare the minds of the Members of the House to receive what I have to put before them, may I make reference to a series of Questions I have put to more than one Minister during the past few weeks, and more particularly to two Questions, one to the Secretary of State for Air yesterday, and the second to the Minister of Food on the same day.
The Question which I asked the Secretary of State for Air was, Whether the censure of the Air Council had been passed upon such of its own members as had been concerned with certain offenees. The right hon. Gentleman chose to take that as an accusation that he and one or more of his colleagues had been guilty of offences. I ask the House to judge


fairly. Do I, in my question, impute any offences whatever either to himself or to any member of the Air Council? When I say "concerned with those offences" I simply mean that they were acting in a way which might be termed as "concerned in the offence" and thus subject to censure by the appropriate body; and I propose to do my best to prove that that is the case. As I said, I make no accusation of any criminal or civil offence against the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues. The interesting point is this, that in answer to a further Question of mine later in the day the Minister of Food, as far as I can make out, stated that the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of an offence. He cited, for instance, the Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861, and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, obviously intending to convey to the House that in an offence those who aid and abet are liable to be prosecuted. If the food offence is an offence of distributing food to persons to whom it ought not to be distributed, it is obvious that one can regard the persons who receive it as abettors, because the offence itself could not have been committed unless persons had abetted it by receiving the food in question.
Having made that explanation, in order not to waste the time of the House, so as to give the right hon. Gentleman the longest possible time to make a reply, which I humbly hope he will be able to do in a manner satisfactory both to himself and to the House, I wish to say this. By the time I have sat down, probably many Members of the House will think that I have unduly taken advantage of a certain privilege of this House—the privilege which is granted to us, as to counsel in court, of being protected against the possibility of libel actions if we dare to tell the truth. The subject seems to be of such importance that I feel fully justified in making the fullest possible use of that privilege while I place before the House certain things. I am tempted to call them facts and I hope that I shall be able to show that they are facts; but perhaps it would be better if I said certain information which I have received regarding 54 Group Training Command of the Royal Air Force, at Regent's Park. I want to inform the House that for months—and when I say months, I mean many months—I have

been collecting from innumerable sources information as to what was happening. The first information, if I remember rightly, came from airmen of that unit, who found themselves and their comrades getting into very serious trouble for offences which, in their opinion, were exactly the offences which their officers were committing with impunity.
Having obtained a large amount of information, I then did my level best, within the compass of my ability, to sort out everything of doubtful veracity or that which appeared to be coloured by prejudice. Hon. Members who have had to deal with such matters will agree that that is a tremendous task, and that one gets an immense amount of information, obviously malicious, and an immense amount prejudiced by some feeling, even by perfectly proper feeling. Therefore, it has taken me a long time to bring this matter before the House. I want, further, to add that every single item of the indictment which I propose to bring this afternoon has been submitted to at least two independent witnesses of repute, in many cases to three, and I make no statement which has not been thus confirmed by persons of repute, some of them hon. Members of this House, some of them people outside.
The circumstances of the case are these. In order to relieve the food shortage, and to secure good quality food for the personnel of our Fighting Services, the latter have wisely been encouraged to produce vegetables, meat, even fish, for the consumption of themselves and their comrades. However, I think the House will agree that if such foodstuffs are diverted from those entitled to receive them, and are used to supplement the dietary of persons in official positions, a somewhat grave state of affairs arises, and natural resentment is caused to soldiers, naval ratings, or airmen who are thus deprived of, at any rate, some of their due. That is how the trouble arose. Number 54 Group undertook food production on quite a large scale. It not only trained the young airmen in the way they should go, but it also conducted piggeries, sausage and curing establishments, market gardens, and even a fishing fleet. Much of this is known to the House but some is not. In order to conduct these operations it held a licence from the Ministry of Food to produce food for the consumption of the airmen of the unit


only, but not for distribution to other persons. I hope the House will remember that fact and get it quite clear in their minds—the licence said, "This food may be produced for one purpose only, for consumption by the airmen of the unit."
Now I make the following allegations: First, with the knowledge of the Commanding Officer of the unit, the Air Commodore commanding 54 Group, and of his Senior Air Staff Officer, food produced by and for the unit was, over a long period, distributed by sale or otherwise to persons who had no claim or right to receive it. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I may perhaps be allowed to hand a copy of these allegations to the Secretary of State for his own convenience. Second, records of sales were kept in a book and apparently monthly accounts rendered. I have examined what purports to be a photographic copy of the entries in that book, showing the names of the recipients of the food together with the quantities, the dates, and the prices. Third, the majority of those names are of persons in official positions, in positions where they could either break the offenders, or exercise vast powers of patronage in their favour.
Doubtless, some of those who acquired this food did so thoughtlessly, and without appreciating the possible consequences; they did not realise then that by doing so they were putting themselves in the power of those who sold it to them. Fourth, the list includes—and for convenience a man and wife are assumed to be one—(a) two Air Force officers of status superior to that of the Air Commodore then commanding the Group; (b) five officials of various Ministries concerned with one or other of the activities of the Group; (c) two Ministers and their immediate subordinates. As I have said, a great deal of the affair was known to all ranks of the unit, and nearly a year ago an officer of the Air Force, in the course of his duty, gave information about it to the Ministry of Food. They, I understand, expressed the opinion that there had been serious breaches of the law, but, in conformity with a common practice when the Provost Marshal of the Air Force requested that the matter should be dealt with under the Air Force Act, instead of by the ordinary criminal law, they acceded to that request. So far so good. That procedure may be convenient, indeed, in many cases desirable; but even in ordinary cases it may lead to abuse

and, especially, as in the present case, when officers of high rank are involved. I think the House will agree with that.
Training Command, the appropriate authority, gave instructions that a summary of evidence should be prepared with a view to bringing four officers before a court-martial. I do not know how serious were the attempts to bring the offenders to justice, but I have no reason to suppose that they were not sincere, and I do not know to what extent efforts were made deliberately to obstruct them. Whether the book in which the entries of the names were made is still in existence, and whether knowledge of it ever came to those lawyers whose duty it is to advise on cases for court-martial, I do not know, but it must be very obvious that the opportunities for suppression of the evidence showing the scope of the scandal were very great indeed. According to answers given in this House, it appears that some disciplinary action was taken, action with which the Minister of Food expressed himself as satisfied. I wonder whether he would have felt that satisfaction if he had known the whole picture? Certain officers have been reprimanded, but it would seem to me that the real culprits—those who organised this racket to benefit their friends, to increase their own power, and to compromise their superior officers and others—have not been brought to justice.
I ask the House, if it agrees with what I have put forward, and in the absence or an adequate defence by the Ministers concerned, for a full public and impartial inquiry to be made into this matter, so that if it be proved that any persons, whatever their positions, in the service of the Crown have broken the law, they shall be brought to justice, and thus the House will make it certain that attempts to compromise responsible officials and Ministers will not succeed in future.

5.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The last thing I want to do this afternoon is to make light of the disregard of important regulations and rules of the Food Ministry at a Royal Air Force station. I deeply regret it. I have insisted on the most thorough investigation into these transactions, and steps are being taken which I hope will result in making it impossible for the same kind of mistakes to be committed again. Nevertheless it is not true to


represent what has occurred as, to quote the words of the hon. Gentleman, "an organised racket." There was no evidence of fraud or any improper motives. The food-producing activity at this station was, in its inception, as I think the hon. Gentleman admitted in his speech, a thoroughly praiseworthy enterprise, in the conduct of which, however, certain officers were carried away by excessive zeal into breaches of the regulations which could not be overlooked. The hon. Gentleman said that in the Question which he addressed to me yesterday he intended to bring no accusation against me. Well, I should not object if he did—I should have no right to do so.—but I must say that I thought he did. He suggested that he brought no accusation against me, and then went on to say that I had acted in such a way as to invite censure because I had committed an offence as an abettor. That is an accusation.

Mr. Hopkinson: The Minister must not misrepresent me. He said that I brought an accusation against him that he was an abettor. What I did was to draw attention to the fact that one of his fellow-Ministers said he was an offender and quoted the Act of Parliament to prove it.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he thinks I did commit an offence—in which case it is quite right for him to come here and give me the opportunity of answering—do not let him make out that he was not making any accusation at all. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he had obtained, over a period of months, information that airmen were being punished at this station for offences for which officers were getting off scot free. Why did he not bring the information to me? I would have acted at once if he had. It was most unhelpful, if he had such information, not to bring it to me at once.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman merely asking a rhetorical question or one to which he wants a reply? If he wants a reply it is because during the whole of that period inquiries were being conducted on the station with a view to courts-martial. Surely he does not expect me, when regular official in-

quiries are taking place, to come to him. As he has raised this point he must get this: I went to him nearly 18 months and warned him, most definitely and seriously, as he will possibly remember, of what would happen and the difficulty in which he might find himself by employing certain people.

Sir A. Sinclair: I certainly remember very well that the hon. Gentleman warned me against employing certain people, but he never gave me the slightest warning that anything was wrong on the particular station with which we are concerned. If he had this information, he should have brought it to me as the Minister responsible to this House for what was going on. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that it was 54 Group which undertook this food production. Actually it was No. 3 Aircrew Receiving Centre at Regent's Park which undertook it. The only relevance of making that correction in the hon. Member's statement is that it is the officers who are responsible for the administration of that station who are responsible for the offences committed, and that it is, in my opinion, not right to bring in the Air Officer Commanding 54 Group. The hon. Gentleman handed to me, dramatically, across the Floor of the House—

Mr. Hopkinson: May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker, against these silly sneers on the part of the Minister?

Sir A. Sinclair: I merely wanted to refer to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman did hand to me, across the Floor of the House, a typewritten statement of certain charges which will be in the minds of the House. There is no need to read through them again. He sent me a message yesterday stating that he would give me a statement before the Debate and I was waiting all day to know what charges I would have to answer. I did not realise that I would have to wait until he was making his speech. All the hon. Gentleman's charges amount to this one charge: that food was sold outside the unit contrary to the regulations of the Ministry of Food and the licence which was given by that Ministry to this unit. Yes, that charge is true, and it is a charge which I very greatly regret.
Now let me tell the House exactly what happened. This farm enterprise began in


1942. Vegetables, eggs and pig meat were produced there and sold to the airmen's messes. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that a very large proportion of the meat did not go to the airmen's messes at all, but was sold outside. Actually, the great bulk of the food went to the messes, and only a small proportion was sold outside.

Mr. Hopkinson: That is absolutely an untrue statement. I did not say that a great proportion had been improperly disposed of.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am very glad if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I do not think there is any disagreement on the fact that the great bulk was sold to the airmen's messes, and that a certain amount was sold outside. This started in 1942, at the time when the policy of the Government was to make the greatest possible drive for food production. We in the Air Ministry had large areas of land under our control on our airfields, and we were urged by the Ministry of Agriculture to bring as much of this land into production as we could, and to facilitate the production of garden and agricultural produce. It was, of course, a side-line on many busy stations. It was a sideline at this Aircrew Receiving Centre in Regent's Park. Among the many tasks with which we were confronted at the time was the simultaneous expansion and consolidation of our training organisation, in which this Aircrew Receiving Centre had to play a great part. In this connection it is only fair to the officers whose conduct, I am afraid, must come under criticism, that that part of the work was done by them with magnificent energy, scrupulous care and a high degree of efficiency and success. They carried the same energy into this enterprise of food growing, but I am sorry to say that it was with less than the scrupulous care that they gave to the discharge of their primary duties.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I and a number of other people became abettors in the infringement of the food regulations by accepting this food. Let me tell the House exactly what happened in my case, although I must confess to some difficulty in charging my memory with the exact incidents which took place in the early months of 1942. While I was inspecting the station I was shown

the piggeries in Regent's Park. I was told—and I am sure that it was in good faith at that time, because it was the beginning of the scheme—that it was possible for them to dispose of their surplus to people outside the station. I asked specifically about that, and they said that it would be all right. They had not at that time received their licence, and had based themselves on informal conversations.

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Sir A. Sinclair: They said it would help to dispose of the surpluses which were bound to arise in feeding a very large number of airmen, and it seemed to me ungracious not to show practical interest, and so I said I would very gladly have a small quantity from time to time. To me it was only an incident in the day's work. There was no secret about it. Ministers, high officers, all sorts of people were invited to come down and see what was going on. We have had from time to time exhibitions of the produce of the farms and gardens that we have on hundreds of stations all over the country. On one occasion this unit provided a lunch which was given to official visitors, just as the other day the cookery establishment at Halton provided a tea for official visitors at a similar exhibition of produce grown on Royal Air Force stations. It was all done in the light of day, and it so happened that a number of officers and others thought it right to show their interest and give such little help as they could by buying small packages of food from time to time, and fair market prices were charged, as has been proved, for this food.

Mr. Hopkinson: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "from time to time"? He has gone back to 1942. Does "from time to time" mean regular weekly and monthly accounts?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes. Surpluses were bound to arise weekly or monthly and a number of people took small weekly and monthly parcels.

Mr. Hopkinson: The right hon. Gentleman says it was in the light of day. Were these things conveyed to the recipients in such a way that the airmen employed in conveying them, in the transport of the Royal Air Farce, knew what was in the packages that they were bringing when they delivered them?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have no reason to believe they were not. There was no secret about that as far as I know. Unfortunately, some of the unrationed pig meat was sold to customers outside the station and that, I am not hiding from the House, was contrary to the Regulations of the Food Ministry and to the terms of the licence issued by the Ministry. All this happened many months ago. As soon as it came to light, about the end of last year, the Commander-in-Chief of the Command started an investigation and brought it to my attention. I said at once that the investigation must be thorough and that nothing should be left out. I asked the Minister of Food at once to arrange for my own purchases to be examined and I assured those whose duty it was to conduct the investigation that they would have my full support in pushing it right through to whatever length they thought necessary in order to serve the interests of justice. As the hon. Gentleman has said, a summary of evidence was taken. I tendered my own evidence and would have been willing, if there had been a court-martial, to give evidence there too.
The Commander-in-Chief reviewed the summary of evidence. He is the officer who holds the King's warrant for convening courts-martial, and he was responsible for deciding whether or not it was necessary to hold a court-martial in this case. He is a very experienced man of strong and unimpeachable integrity of character, and he decided on the merits of the case, in the light of the legal advice of the Air Force Deputy of the Judge Advocate-General, who is the highest legal adviser available to the Commander-in-Chief in the Royal Air Force. I would add this about the only other occasion in which I intervened. The first occasion was to say that the investigation was to be thorough. The only other occasion was when I suggested—I did not order—to the legal authorities in the Air Ministry that, as this case dealt not solely with Air Force law, but with

Regulations outside the Air Force—the Food Regulation—it would be as well to get the advice of the Treasury Solicitor, who is the highest legal adviser to the Public Departments. The legal advice which the Air Force Deputy of the Judge Advocate-General gave to the Commander-in-Chief was supported by the Treasury Solicitor, and the Commander-in-Chief came to the conclusion that the institution of a courtmartial was not warranted. He also found, however, that breaches of the Food Regulations had been committed and that they could not be overlooked. Accordingly, he awarded reproval to the officers concerned, and in the case of the two senior officers this was coupled with an expression of the Air Council's severe displeasure, which involved an entry on the official records of the officers' service and is equivalent to a severe reprimand.
There was one point which the hon. Gentleman made to which I intended to refer earlier. He said that, while a summary of evidence was taken, he did not know what obstruction or opportunities of suppression of evidence were afforded. I resent that insinuation. I for my part have taken every step I can to make sure that the investigations were thorough. I am absolutely confident in the integrity of the Commander-in-Chief and the legal advisers of the Air Ministry who conducted this inquiry.

Mr. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that accusation against me? I did not get it quite right.

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what obstruction had taken place in the gathering of the summary of evidence—

Mr. Hopkinson: May I repeat what I said? It was, "How serious were the attempts to bring the offenders to justice I do not know, nor do I know to what extent the efforts made were deliberately frustrated."

Sir A. Sinclair: No efforts made were deliberately frustrated.

Mr. Hopkinson: Why, then, were two of the officers asked to leave the station because they were obstructive?

Sir A. Sinclair: The hon. Gentleman now says there was obstruction. I do not know. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting


that officers at the station, presumably some of those officers who were in some degree concerned with the events— [interruption]—that they did attempt to obstruct. Therefore, they were told to leave the station at once and their obstruction was swept aside. That is exactly what I was saying that I and my legal advisers were determined to ensure.
In conclusion, let me again express my deep regret that the authority of a sister Department should appear to have, been

disregarded and its Regulations infringed by officers for whose actions I am responsible to Parliament. I would, however, ask the House to accept my assurance that the investigation has been thorough and the disciplinary action appropriate, and further, that we have strengthened our administrative safeguards against anything of the same kind happening again.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Six o'Clock.